The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ereli Javier Vera-Espinoza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Vera-Espinoza has not filed a response.

“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, section 2, of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual eases and controversies. 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 parole—some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction—must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Id.

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

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.