Case Name: In re: Brenneis A. NESBITT, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-08
Citations: 461 F. App'x 97
Docket Number: No. 12-1159
Parties: In re: Brenneis A. NESBITT, Petitioner.
Judges: Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 461
Pages: 97–97

Head Matter:
In re: Brenneis A. NESBITT, Petitioner.
No. 12-1159.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Feb. 2, 2012.
Opinion filed Feb. 8, 2012.
Brenneis Alister Nesbitt, Fairton, NJ, pro se.
Kim L. Chisholm, Esq., Office Of United States Attorney, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, VI, for United States of America.
U.S. Atty. St., Office of United States Attorney, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, VI, for Raymond L. Finch.
Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
On January 24, 2012, Brenneis Alister Nesbitt filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we direct the District Court to rule on a motion that he had filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On that same day, the District Court ruled on Nes-bitt's § 2255 motion. In light of the District Court's action, the question Nesbitt presented is no longer a live controversy, so we will deny the petition as moot. See, e.g., Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 974 (3d Cir.1992).