USA v. Lynn, No. 07-40810 (5th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 07-40810 Conference Calendar December 10, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. TOBIAS LYNN, also known as James R White Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-712-1 Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Tobias Lynn has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Lynn has not filed a response. 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 requirement demands that some concrete and continuing * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 07-40810 injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole some collateral consequence of the conviction must exist if the suit is to be maintained. Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7. Counsel asserts that there are no nonfrivolous issues relating to the district court s initial revocation of Lynn s supervised release term in May 2007, Lynn s 120-day restraint in a halfway house, and the continuation of supervised release with additional conditions of release. During the pendency of this appeal, the district court again revoked Lynn s term of supervised release and sentenced him to six months in prison, which he has completed. The judgment imposed no further supervised release term. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for this court to address. The Government s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. Counsel s motion to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.