
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Felipe CASTELLON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-41312 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed March 14, 2018
    John A. Reed, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Kathryn Shephard, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Timothy William Crooks, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Luis Castellón pleaded guilty of being found unlawfully in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) and was sentenced to imprisonment but no supervised release. Castellón was released from custody on December 14,2017, then submitted a letter stating that his appeal was moot in light of his release and deportation.

“The question of whether an appeal is moot is jurisdictional.” United States v. Villanueva-Diaz, 634 F.3d 844, 848 (5th Cir. 2011). “In criminal cases ... a defendant wishing to continue his appeals after the expiration of his sentence must suffer some ‘continuing injury1 or ‘collateral consequence’ sufficient to satisfy Article III.” United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932, 936, 131 S.Ct. 2860, 180 L.Ed.2d 811 (2011). Where the defendant has challenged only his expired sentence, he-has “the burden of identifying some ongoing collateral consequence that is traceable to the challenged portion of the sentence and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. (internal quotation marks, modification, and citation omitted).

Because Castellón has been released from prison, was not sentenced to supervised release, challenges only his sentence on appeal, and fails to identify any ongoing collateral consequence, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     