
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lawrence HUMPHREY, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-30876
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 09/20/2016
    
      Myers P. Namie, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Lawrence Humphrey, Pro Se.
    Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Lawrence Humphrey, federal prisoner #13885-035, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the denial of his motion -under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction and sentence for various firearms offenses. He moves for leave to proceed IFP in this appeal.

We must first examine whether we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Article III of the Constitution authorizes federal courts to “adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990). The case-or-eontrover-sy requirement applies to all stages of litigation from the trial level through the appellate process. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). An appeal is moot where the court can no longer grant any effectual relief to the prevailing party. Motient Corp. v. Dondero, 529 F.3d 532, 537 (5th Cir. 2008). Because mootness implicates Article Ill’s case-or-controversy requirement, it is an issue of jurisdiction. Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987).

We have already disposed of Humphrey’s appeal from the denial of § 2255 relief. Accordingly, this appeal and Humphrey’s motion before this court to proceed IFP are moot. See Motient Corp., 529 F.3d at 537; Bailey, 821 F.2d at 278.

MOTION TO PROCEED IFP DENIED AS MOOT; APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cíe. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     