Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

2-8-2008

In Re: Lizardo Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-4496

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

Recommended Citation "In Re: Lizardo " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1629. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1629

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 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HLD-33 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 07-4496 ___________

IN RE: JUAN FRANCISCO LIZARDO, Petitioner

____________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the District Court of the Virgin Islands (Related to D.V.I. Civ. No. 02-cv-0155) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. December 21, 2007 Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed February 8, 2008 ) _________________

OPINION ________________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Francisco Lizardo petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the

District Court to rule on his pending motion to vacate under

. For the

reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.

Lizardo is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Edgefield,

South Carolina. In his mandamus petition, Lizardo alleges that he filed a § 2255 motion

1 in the District Court on August 16, 2002, to which the District Court has not responded.

Lizardo asks us to order the District Court to act on his motion.

By order entered January 25, 2008, the District Court denied Lizardo’s

motion pursuant to

. Because the District Court has ruled on Lizardo’s

motion, we will deny his mandamus petition as moot. In light of our disposition,

Lizardo’s motion for appointment of counsel is also denied.

2