Pola v. United States, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2015 WL 690312 (6th Cir. Feb. 19, 2015) (When a petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his conviction, [footnote omitted] we presume he will experience lasting collateral consequences. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 12 (In the context of criminal conviction, the presumption of significant collateral consequences is likely to comport with reality.); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 55"57, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968) ([A] criminal case is moot only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction.). Accordingly, we may presume that Pola has satisfied the case-or-controversy requirement because he challenges the constitutionality of his criminal conviction and therefore continues to suffer the burdens of that conviction.); see Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) (This means that, throughout the litigation, the [petitioner] must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 358, 77 S.Ct. 481, 1 L.Ed.2d 393 (1957) (holding that petitions for certiorari are allowed only where [the Court's] judgment will have some material effect.).