Alexis Hines appeals from the revocation of her probation and the imposition of an eight-month term of postrevocation imprisonment. No additional term of probation or supervised release was imposed upon revocation. Hines completed her term of imprisonment while her appeal was pending, and she has been released from prison. Her court-appointed counsel has now moved to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

This appeal requires us to examine sua sponte the basis of our jurisdiction. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases 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. at 7, 118 S.Ct. 978 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because Hines has completed the entire sentence imposed for her probation revocation, there is no case or controversy for us to address. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7, 14-18, 118 S.Ct. 978; United States v. Clark, 193 F.3d 845, 847-48 (5th Cir. 1999).

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is DISMISSED as moot. Consequently, counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary.