NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 20-1011 ___________

IN RE: C. TATE GEORGE, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 3-17-cv-02641) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. June 29, 2020 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES and COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed July 8, 2020) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

In January 2020, C. Tate George filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus,

asking us to direct the District Court to rule on a motion to vacate sentence that he filed

pursuant to

. On May 26, 2020, the District Court denied the § 2255

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. motion. See ECF 66, 67. Because George has now obtained the relief that he seeks in

his mandamus petition, we will dismiss the petition as moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny

Ludlum Corp.,

(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