See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Along those lines, “the case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, —, 118 S.Ct. 978, 983, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). Clark appealed the district court’s order extending his period of supervised release after he had completed his prison sentence for mail fraud. The district court ordered extended supervision because Clark had not made restitution of a large sum of money. By the time Clark filed this appeal, his period of supervised release had long since ended. Accordingly, “some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended [supervised release] must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Id. at —, 118 S.Ct. at 983 (<HOLDING>). The petitioner has the burden to establish
holding that the collateral consequences of a parole revocation were insufficient to create a case or controversy after the petitioner was released holding that revocation of parole does not create collateral consequences sufficient to extend standing beyond expiration of sentence and rejecting as moot a challenge to an allegedly erroneous parole revocation holding that there is no significant conceptual difference between the revocation of probation or parole and the revocation of supervised release holding that a right to confrontation exists in parole revocation proceedings holding drivers license revocation was not moot because collateral consequences of revocation may be substantial including higher insurance rates and adverse employment consequences