Court Opinion

ID: 9368008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 18:00:32.648292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.069050
License: Public Domain

HLD-004                                                          NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 22-2439
                                       ___________

                      IN RE: LAQUON TERRANCE ROBINSON,
                                                Petitioner
                       ____________________________________

                     On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
          United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
                  (Related to W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2-06-cr-00318-001)
                      ____________________________________

                     Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                 November 10, 2022

     Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

                            (Opinion filed February 2, 2023 )
                                       _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       Laquan Robinson petitions pro se for a writ of mandamus, requesting that we

compel the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to rule

on motions for compassionate release that he filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
He has also filed a supplemental petition reiterating that request. By order entered

December 9, 2022, the District Court denied his motions for compassionate release.

       In light of the District Court’s action, Robinson’s mandamus petition no longer

presents a live controversy. We will accordingly dismiss his petition and supplemental

petition as moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir.

1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a

plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to

grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”).

                                             2