
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel Angel VALIENTE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50805
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 20, 2011.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Miguel Angel Valiente, Chaparral, NM, pro se.
    Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Defendant-Appellant Miguel Angel Valiente has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Valiente 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, section 2, of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). The case-or-controversy requirement 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. (citation omitted).

During the pendency of this appeal, Defendant-Appellant Valiente completed the sentence of imprisonment that was imposed on the revocation of his supervised release and no further term of supervised release was imposed. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for us to address, and this appeal is dismissed as moot. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied as unnecessary.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     