
    Floyd Stanhope FRANCIS, Petitioner-Appellant v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-31110
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 11, 2015.
    Floyd Stanhope Francis Gadsden, AL, pro se.
    Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Shreveport, LA, for Respondenh-Appellee.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

In February 2014, Floyd Stanhope Francis, a native and citizen of Jamaica, filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his prolonged detention by the Department of Homeland Security as unconstitutional in light of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001), and seeking in-junctive relief. The Government has moved to supplement the record with a declaration from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that Francis was removed to Jamaica on August 27, 2015.

‘Whether an appeal is moot is a jurisdictional matter, since it implicates the Article III requirement that there be a live case or controversy.” Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir.1987). “In general, a matter is moot for Article III purposes if the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Sierra Club v. Glickman, 156 F.3d 606, 619 (5th Cir.1998).

In this appeal, Francis challenged only the lawfulness of the length of his post-removal-order detention, not the basis for his removal or the removal order itself. Thus, because he is no longer detained and has been removed from the United States, his challenge is now moot. See Odus v. Ashcroft, 61 Fed.Appx. 121, 121 (5th Cir. 2003); Umanzor v. Lambert, 782 F.2d 1299, 1301 (5th Cir.1986).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Francis’s motion to supplement his brief is DENIED; the Government’s motion to supplement the record is GRANTED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     