Jose Eduardo Perfecto-Mendoza pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry into the United States and was sentenced to serve 12 months in prison and a two-year term of supervised release. Now, he argues that the judgment should be modified because it contains a condition of supervised release that was not orally imposed. He alternately argues that this condition infringes his Fifth Amendment rights.

“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); see Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987). Article III, section 2, 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.

The term of supervised release at the heart of this appeal has been revoked, and no new term has been imposed. Thus, the condition of release that Perfecto-Mendo-za complains of is no longer applicable to him, and this appeal is moot.

DISMISSED AS MOOT.