Filed: Jun. 17, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 16, 2009 No. 08-60602 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. KENNY FRANKLIN EDMONSON Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:01-CR-27-1 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Kenny Franklin Edmonson appeals the revocation
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 16, 2009 No. 08-60602 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. KENNY FRANKLIN EDMONSON Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:01-CR-27-1 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Kenny Franklin Edmonson appeals the revocation o..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 16, 2009
No. 08-60602
Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
KENNY FRANKLIN EDMONSON
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:01-CR-27-1
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kenny Franklin Edmonson appeals the revocation of his supervised
release, following a 2002 conviction for access device fraud. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 1029(a)(2). Edmonson has served the term of imprisonment imposed upon
revocation, and the district court imposed no further term of supervised release.
Therefore, Edmonson has no “concrete and continuing injury,” and there is no
case or controversy over which this court may exercise jurisdiction under Article
*
Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 08-60602
III, § 2, of the Constitution. Spencer v. Kemna,
523 U.S. 1, 7, 14 (1998). The
Government’s motion to strike the reply brief is DENIED as unnecessary, and
this appeal is DISMISSED as moot.
2