Donald Joseph West was convicted of aggravated bank robbery; using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; and being a felon in *282 possession of a firearm; this court affirmed the judgment of conviction. See United States v. West, 567 Fed.Appx. 240, 2014 WL 1797725 (5th Cir. May 7, 2014). Prior to entry of the final judgment, West filed several pro se motions seeking various forms of relief from the district court. The instant appeal is from the district court’s denial of those prejudgment motions.

“Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990). “The case-or-controversy requirement is present at all levels of litigation, from the trial level through the appellate process.” United States v. Jeffers, 479 Fed.Appx. 649, 649 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477-78, 110 S.Ct. 1249). “An appeal is moot when the court can no longer grant any effectual relief to the prevailing party.” Jeffers, 479 Fed.Appx. at 649-50 (citing Motient Corp. v. Dondero, 529 F.3d 532, 537 (5th Cir. 2008)). Because it implicates the case-or-controversy requirement under Article III, mootness is jurisdictional and this court must raise the issue sua sponte if necessary. United States v. Lares-Meraz, 452 F.3d 352, 354-55 (5th Cir. 2006).

Given that the judgment of conviction has been rendered and affirmed, this court cannot grant West the effectual relief he requests in this, the appeal of the denial of the prejudgment motions. Accordingly, the appeal is moot and it is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Lares-Meraz, 452 F.3d at 354-55.