Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In Re: Brenneis A. Nesbitt, 16-1642 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 16-1642 Visitors: 21
Filed: Feb. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: DLD-106 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 12-1159 _ IN RE: BRENNEIS A. NESBITT, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the District Court of the Virgin Islands (Related to D.V.I. Crim. No. 04-cr-00077/D.V.I. Civ. No. 09-cv-00126) _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. February 2, 2012 Before: AMBRO, JORDAN AND VANASKIE, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed February 8, 2012) _ OPINION _ PER CURIAM On January 24, 2012, Brenneis Alister Nes
More
DLD-106                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 12-1159
                                       ___________

                            IN RE: BRENNEIS A. NESBITT,
                                                         Petitioner
                       ____________________________________

                      On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
                            District Court of the Virgin Islands
         (Related to D.V.I. Crim. No. 04-cr-00077/D.V.I. Civ. No. 09-cv-00126)
                      ____________________________________

                     Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                   February 2, 2012
             Before: AMBRO, JORDAN AND VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed February 8, 2012)
                                       _________

                                        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

Nesbitt’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).

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer