
    Tony Robert DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant v. K. J. WENDT, Respondent-Appellee. Tony Robert Davis, Petitioner-Appellant v. Johnny Sutton; Robert Pitman; Kelly Wayne Loving; Michele McElroy; Jane J. Boyle; Angie L. Henson, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 04-10682
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 26, 2007.
    Tony Davis, Austin, TX, pro se.
    Angie Lee Henson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Tony Robert Davis, former federal prisoner # 68917-080, appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. In that § 2241 petition, Davis challenged his convictions and sentences for conspiracy, wire fraud, travel and transportation of securities for fraudulent purposes, and money laundering. See United States v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346, 348 (5th Cir.2000). During the pendency of this appeal, Davis was released from prison, and he completed his term of supervised release. As a result, Davis’s claims have been rendered moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278-79 (5th Cir.1987). Therefore, this appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Davis’s abuse of the judicial system warrants the imposition of a sanction. From this date forward, Davis is no longer allowed to file any documents or pleadings in this court or in any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction without first obtaining permission from a judge of this court. The Clerk of this Court and the clerks of all federal district courts within this Circuit are directed to refuse to file any pro se civil complaint or appeal by Davis unless Davis submits proof that he has obtained the permission of this court. If Davis attempts to file any further notices of appeal or original proceedings in this court the clerk will docket them for administrative purposes only. Any other submissions which do not show proof that the sanction has been satisfied will be neither addressed nor acknowledged.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     