USA v. Johnson, No. 05-51189 (5th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

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 December 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-51189 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BEVERLY JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:93-CR-134-ALL -------------------Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* 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 (1967). Johnson has not filed a response to his counsel s motion. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Cir. 1987). Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Article III, § 2, of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. * See 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 05-51189 -2Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (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. 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. MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

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.