Case ID: f-appx_677/html/0087-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: Joel DIAZ-HINIRIO, Petitioner
    No. 16-4258
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. January 5, 2017
    (Opinion filed: February 13, 2017)
    Joel Diaz-Hinirio, Pro Se
    Kim Linquist, Esq., Delia L. Smith, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, St. Thomas, VI, for Respondent
    Before: MCKEE, JORDAN and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
   OPINION

PER CURIAM

Joel Diaz-Hinirio pleaded guilty to federal drug and firearms offenses, but he preserved his ability to appeal the District Court’s order denying in part his motions to suppress. Diaz-Hinirio appealed' that ruling at C.A. No. 13-3198. In that appeal, we remanded for the District Court to “state its essential findings on the record” as required by Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Diaz-Hinirio has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to comply with our mandate. On December 10, 2016, however, the District Court issued a detailed 59-page opinion explaining its reasons for denying in part Diaz-Hinirio’s motions to suppress. (ECF No. ,237.) Thus, Diaz-Hinirio’s petition is moot, and we will dismiss it on that basis. 
      
       This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.