
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry W. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 04-40997, 04-41045, 04-41610.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Feb. 22, 2006.
    David Haskell Henderson, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Bernard John Shealy, Amy R. Blalock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, Jerry W, Williams, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jerry W. Williams has appealed the district court’s order modifying the conditions of his supervised release to require his placement in a community corrections center. Williams has also appealed the district court’s orders denying his motions for statewide travel authorization during the 2004-05 holiday season and to have grand jury proceedings unsealed and transcribed and to unseal and transcribe all records. These three appeals have been consolidated.

Williams’s appointed counsel, the Federal Public Defender, has moved for leave to withdraw, pursuant to Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that the appeal from the modification of the conditions of Williams’s supervised release presents no nonfrivolous issue. Williams has filed a response to the motion.

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). After this appeal was filed, Williams’s supervision was revoked on the basis of new and continuing violations of the conditions of his supervised release and he has been sentenced to an additional term of imprisonment with no further supervision. Because Williams is no longer under supervision and will not be subject to supervision after he has served his additional term of imprisonment, the appeals from the orders modifying the conditions of his supervised release and denying Williams’s request for leave to travel out of state are moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-14, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). The motions to have grand jury proceedings unsealed and transcribed, and to unseal and transcribe all records were predicated on the reinstatement of Williams’s then pending appeal in United States v. Williams, 142 Fed.Appx. 205 (5th Cir.2005) (unpublished). Because that appeal has been decided, the appeal from the order denying those motions is moot.

Because the consolidated appeals are moot, this court lacks jurisdiction. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY and the appeal is DISMISSED. 
      
       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.
     