Timothy Baukman v.

ALD-123 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 26-1358 ___________ IN RE: TIMOTHY BAUKMAN, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2:05-cr-00440-008) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. April 30, 2026 Before: SHWARTZ, FREEMAN, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 6, 2026) _________ OPINION * _________ PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

Timothy Baukman filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus asking us to direct the District Court to rule on his motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct his presentence investigation report. Ct. App. Dkt. No. 1. After Baukman filed the mandamus petition, the District Court entered an order denying the Rule 36 motion. In light of the District Court’s order denying Baukman’s Rule 36 motion, this mandamus petition no longer presents a live controversy. Therefore, we will dismiss it as moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996).