USA v. Vega, No. 08-20217 (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. 08-20217 Conference Calendar December 10, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROSIE LEE VEGA Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CR-303-ALL Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rosie Lee Vega has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Vega has not 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 08-20217 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. Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7. Counsel asserts that there are no nonfrivolous issues relating to the district court s revocation of Vega s supervised release and sentence of eight months in prison. During the pendency of this appeal, Vega completed her eight month term of imprisonment. The judgment imposed no further supervised release term. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for this court to address, and this appeal is DISMISSED as moot. 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.