After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner Gilmer Lavern Lake appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241. Mr. Lake was an inmate at the United States Disciplinary Barracks in Leavenworth, Kansas, and complained that his due process rights were being violated by the ex post facto application of new and more onerous Department of Defense regulations relative to his parole. The district court denied the petition in an order dated June 30, 1994. Mr. Lake was unconditionally released from confinement on November 2, 1994.

The government responds that this appeal is moot because Mr. Lake has already served his sentence. We agree. In Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237 (1968), the Supreme Court held that a petitioner's challenge of his conviction is not rendered moot by the fact that the underlying sentence has expired. That rule, however, is not applicable when the defendant purports to challenge only his sentence and the sentence has been fully served. Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). In Lane, because the respondents sought only to "remov[e] the consequence that gave rise to the constitutional harm"--i.e., the sentences--and because the sentences had already expired, the Court determined it could no longer grant the respondents any effective relief. See id.

In Johnson v. Riveland, 855 F.2d 1477, 1481-82 (10th Cir. 1988), we applied the Lane rule and held moot a defendant's challenge to the computation of his sentence. We noted that the defendant "has already served the minimum sentence as commuted and has not shown any direct or collateral consequences that will survive his release on parole." Id. at 1481-82.

In the instant case, as in Lane, Mr. Lake challenges only his prison sentence. His sole contention is that the application of the new Department of Defense rules to him was unconstitutional. Thus, as in Lane, Mr. Lake is seeking only to "remov[e] the consequence that gave rise to the [alleged] constitutional harm." Because Mr. Lake's claimed consequence--i.e., his prison sentence--has come to an end, and because he has demonstrated no direct or indirect collateral consequences that survive his release from prison, see Johnson, 855 F.2d at 1481-82, we hold Mr. Lake's claim is moot.

This appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.