Roberto V. Baltazar appeals from the judgment revoking 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). 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 case-or-controversy requirement demands that “some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or *798 parole-some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction-must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Id.

Baltazar has served the sentence that was imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking Baltazar’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.

APPEAL DISMISSED.