Audrey Higgins appeals the district court’s judgment revoking her supervised release and imposing a four-month custodial sentence. Higgins’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion by revoking her supervised release and imposing the custodial sentence. Higgins has been informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
Because Higgins has been discharged from federal custody, her sentence did not include a term of supervised release, and there are no continuing collateral consequences from the district court’s judgment on revocation of supervised release, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 10, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore dismiss Higgins’s appeal as moot. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition to the Supreme Court of the United States *22for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED