
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jason VALE, Defendant-Appellant, Christian Bros. Contracting Corp., A Corporation, Defendant.
    No. 13-2111-CR.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 16, 2014.
    Jason Vale, Bellerose Manor, NY, pro se.
    Amy Busa, Charles S. Kleinberg, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.
    Present: ROBERT D. SACK, REENA RAGGI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court entered on May 13, 2013, is AFFIRMED.

Jason Vale, pro se, appeals from the denial of his request for an order declaring that his federal conviction for three counts of criminal contempt, see 18 U.S.C. § 401(3), does not constitute a felony conviction for the purpose of being allowed to vote or possess a weapon. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and underlying proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

“Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power of the United States to the resolution of cases and controversies.” Cooper v. U.S. Postal Serv., 577 F.3d 479, 489 (2d Cir.2009) (citing U.S. Const. art. III, § 2). “In order to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement, a party must, at all stages of the litigation, have an actual injury which is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” United States v. Blackburn, 461 F.3d 259, 261 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A case becomes moot when it no longer satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.... ” United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 478 (2d Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A claim is not ripe if it depends upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.” National Org. for Marriage, Inc. v. Walsh, 714 F.3d 682, 687 (2d Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[F]ederal courtfs] lack[ ] the power to render advisory opinions.” United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Vale’s motion for clarification did not present a live case or controversy because (1) any challenge to his sentence was moot, as he had already completed his terms of imprisonment and supervised release, see United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d at 479; and (2) the hypothetical denial of voting or gun owning privileges was not ripe because it “depend[ed] upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all,” National Org. for Marriage, Inc. v. Walsh, 714 F.3d at 687 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court correctly declined to issue an advisory opinion as to whether Vale’s crime of conviction constituted a felony.

We have considered ■ Vale’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.  