USA v. Wright

Filing 920061024


Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-11422 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DAVID WAYNE WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-22-ALL -------------------Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* David Wayne Wright appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Wright contends that the sentence was unreasonable and that the district court failed to consider the sentencing factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). This court must examine the basis Mosley v. of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. 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 Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * No. 04-11422 -2(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. Wright has served the sentence that was imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking Wright's term of 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. APPEAL DISMISSED.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?