UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Lee BROWN, Defendant-Appellant, 180 F. App'x 527

PER CURIAM: Daniel Lee Brown appeals from the district court’s revocation of his supervised release term. The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Brown filed a motion for leave to withdraw and a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Brown has not filed a response. We note that while this appeal was pending, Brown was released from prison. Because mootness implicates the

Article III requirement that there be a live case or controversy, it is a jurisdictional matter which we must raise sua sponte if necessary. Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir.1987); see also Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). Because the record reflects that Brown has been released and is not subject to any additional term of supervised release, there is no case or controversy for this court to address. See Bailey, 821 F.2d at 278; cf. United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 928 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal AS MOOT. Pursuant to 5th Cir.

R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.