The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Manuel Guerrero, Jr., in his appeal of the order revoking his supervised release has filed a motion and a brief in accordance with Anders v. Califor *376 nia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Guerrero has not filed a response to his counsel’s motion.

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Article III, § 2 of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). The ease-or-controversy requirement demands that “some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole — some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction— must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Id.

Guerrero already has served the sentence that was imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking Guerrero’s supervised release imposed no further term of supervised release. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for this court to address, and the appeal is dismissed as moot. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied as unnecessary.

MOTION DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPEAL DISMISSED.