
    UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marisol COLIN-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50227
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 22, 2010.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Karyl Jean Krug, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Marisol Colin-Garcia 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). Colin-Garcia 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. at 7, 118 S.Ct. 978.

Upon revoking her supervised release, the district court sentenced Colin-Garcia to 15 months of imprisonment, but the court did not impose any additional term of supervised release. During the pen-dency of this appeal, Colin-Garcia completed her term of imprisonment and has been discharged from prison. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for us to address.

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is DISMISSED as moot, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     