Opinion
22-1896
08-29-2022
IN RE: JULIO AVILES, SR., Petitioner
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. on August 18, 2022
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Related to M.D. Pa. Crim. No. 1:15-cr-00181-001) District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion
Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
OPINION [*]
PER CURIAM.
Julio Aviles, Sr., petitions pro se for a writ of mandamus, appearing to request that we compel the District Court to rule on a motion for compassionate release he filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The District Court has since denied Aviles' motion for compassionate release, and Aviles has appealed. See C. A. No. 22-2319. In light of the District Court's action, this mandamus petition no longer presents a live controversy and must be dismissed 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."). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition. To the extent that Aviles requests, as an alternative to mandamus relief, that we "determine what Congress meant by the motions by inmates for compassionate release," Mandamus Pet. 7, ECF No. 1-3, that request, which we construe as seeking an advisory opinion, is denied. See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975) (reasoning that "[t]he exercise of judicial power under Art. III of the Constitution depends on the existence of a case or controversy," and "a federal court [lacks] the power to render advisory opinions").
Aviles' appeal remains pending, and nothing in our opinion here is meant to take a position on the merits of that appeal.
Aviles' motion to be excused from the service requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21(a)(1) is granted.
[*] This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.