Daniel Lee Brown appeals from the district court’s revocation of his supervised release term. The Federal Public Defend *528 er appointed to represent Brown filed a motion for leave to withdraw and a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Brown has not filed a response.

We note that while this appeal was pending, Brown was released from prison. Because mootness implicates the Article III requirement that there be a live case or controversy, it is a jurisdictional matter which we must raise sua sponte if necessary. Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). Because the record reflects that Brown has been released and is not subject to any additional term of supervised release, there is no case or controversy for this court to address. See Bailey, 821 F.2d at 278; cf. United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 928 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal AS MOOT.