Carlo Amato v. ( 2021 )

ALD-026 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 21-2789
___________
IN RE: CARLO AMATO,
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. 3-19-cv-19449)
District Judge: Honorable Michael A. Shipp
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 10, 2021
Before: JORDAN, RESTREPO, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 14, 2021)
__________
OPINION*
__________
PER CURIAM
Carlo Amato petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to rule
on his motion to vacate, correct, or set aside his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. After
Amato filed this petition, the District Court denied the motion by order entered
November 30, 2021. Thus, because Amato has received all the relief he requested, his
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
petition is moot and we will dismiss it on that basis. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum
Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996). Amato’s motion for a refund of his filing fees
is denied. See Porter v. Dep’t of Treasury, 564 F.3d 176, 179 (3d Cir. 2009) (“It is of no
consequence whether an appeal is voluntarily dismissed, dismissed due to a jurisdictional
defect, or dismissed on the merits—appellants are not entitled to the return of their filing
and docketing fees.”).
2