¶1 Counsel appointed to represent Beverly Johnson in his appeal from the order revoking Johnson’s supervised release has filed a motion and a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Johnson has not filed a response to his counsel’s motion.
¶2 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). Article III, § 2, of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. See *361 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.
¶3 Johnson has served the sentence that was imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking Johnson’s supervised release imposed no further term of supervised release. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for this court to address, and the appeal is dismissed as moot. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied as unnecessary.
¶4 MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.