RESUBMIT HLD-011 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-1862
___________
IN RE: CLARENCE BRISCOE-BEY,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the
District of Delaware
(Related to D. Del. Crim. No. 03-cr-00018-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 15, 2012
Before: MCKEE Chief Judge, ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 9, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Clarence Briscoe-Bey, a federal inmate, filed an “interlocutory” notice of appeal
in his collateral review proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, complaining of alleged delay
in the District Court’s adjudication of the § 2255 motion. See D. Del. Crim. No. 03-cr-
00018-001, Docket # 245. This Court entered an order construing the pro se notice of
appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. See Hassine v.
Zimmerman, 160 F.3d 941, 954 (3d Cir. 1998) (explaining that a habeas petitioner who
experiences delay “can seek a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to reach a
decision on the habeas claim”). Shortly thereafter, the District Court entered an order of
its own denying Briscoe-Bey’s § 2255 motion and closing the proceeding.
In light of the District Court’s entry of an order adjudicating Briscoe-Bey’s § 2255
motion, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus as moot.