Julio Aviles, Sr. v., No. 22-1896 (3d Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 22-1896 ___________ IN RE: JULIO AVILES, SR., Petitioner ____________________________________ 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 ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. on August 18, 2022 Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 29, 2022) ____________________________________ ___________ 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. 22-2319.1 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.2 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, * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 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. 2 2 401 (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”). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
