Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-7-2005 In Re: Jerome Reed Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-3301 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "In Re: Jerome Reed " (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 564. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/564 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. HPS-119 (July 2005) NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 05-3301 ________________ IN RE: JEROME B. REED, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Related to D. Del. Civ. No. 1:04-cv-00326-GMS) _____________________________________ Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. July 29, 2005 Before: CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES (Filed: September 7, 2005) _______________________ OPINION _______________________ PER CURIAM Pro se petitioner Jerome Reed seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to reach an immediate decision on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Reed has also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel and a motion to amend his mandamus petition with additional case law in support of his underlying claim.  Reed filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on May 21, 2004. The State filed its Answer in September of 2004, and Reed replied in October. On August 29, 2005, after Reed had filed the instant petition, the District Court issued a lengthy opinion denying Reed’s request for habeas corpus relief. Because Reed has now received the relief he sought in filing his mandamus petition – a ruling on his habeas corpus petition – we will deny his mandamus petition and accompanying motions as moot. 2