United States v. McDaniel

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-20876
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TERRYLON MCDANIEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:00-CR-870-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Terrylon
McDaniel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as
required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). McDaniel
has not filed a response.
This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its
own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th
Cir. 1987). Article III, § 2 of the Constitution limits federal
court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. Spencer v.
Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). The case-or-controversy requirement

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-20876
-2-
demands that “some concrete and continuing injury other than
the now-ended incarceration or parole -- some ‘collateral
consequence’ of the conviction -- must exist if the suit is to be
maintained.” Id.
McDaniel has served the sentence that was imposed upon the
revocation of her supervised release. The order revoking
McDaniel’s term of supervised release imposed no further term of
supervised release. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy
for this court to address, and the appeal is dismissed as moot.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied as unnecessary.
MOTION DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --