The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hugo Reyes-Mendoza 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). Reyes-Mendoza has not filed a response and has been removed from the United States.

Following this court’s prior opinion in United States v. Reyes-Mendoza, 665 F.3d 165 (5th Cir. 2011), and the district court’s resentencing of Reyes-Mendoza on remand, the only issue properly before this court is the validity of Reyes-Mendoza’s sentence. See Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1329 (5th Cir. 1996); Burroughs v. FFP Operating Partners, 70 F.3d 31, 33 (5th Cir. 1995). However, because Reyes-Mendoza has been removed, any appeal from his sentence is moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 383 (5th Cir. 2007); see also Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that this court must raise *399 the issue of mootness sua sponte when necessary because it is a threshold issue and implicates Article III jurisdiction). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED as moot, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary.