Tony Matthew Ward appeals the 24-month sentence the district court imposed when it revoked his supervised release.

“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). The United States Constitution limits this court’s jurisdiction to live cases and controversies. U.S. Const, art. III, § 2. The case-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.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998).

During the pendency of this appeal, Ward completed his imprisonment term, and he has been released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. The district court’s order revoking Ward’s term of 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.