USA v. Ronald Leleaux
Filing
920100218
Case: 09-30280
Document: 00511027342
Page: 1
Date Filed: 02/12/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
No. 09-30280 Conference Calendar February 12, 2010 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RONALD LELEAUX, Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:08-CR-315-1
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Ronald Leleaux has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Leleaux has filed a response. "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, section 2, of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). The case-or-controversy
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
*
Case: 09-30280
Document: 00511027342 Page: 2 No. 09-30280
Date Filed: 02/12/2010
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. at 7. Upon revoking his supervised release, the district court sentenced Leleaux to one year and one day of imprisonment, but the court did not impose any additional term of supervised release. During the pendency of this appeal, Leleaux completed his term of imprisonment. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for us to address. Although Leleaux argues that his underlying 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) conviction was invalid because of a subsequent expungement of the predicate offense, he cannot use his appeal of the revocation of his supervised release to challenge the underlying conviction. See United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 976 (2009). For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is DISMISSED as moot, and counsel's motion to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary.
2
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?