In Re: John Gassew

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: SMITH, HARDIMAN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 2. DLD-158 To the extent that Gassew asks the Court to take Judicial Notice of certain statements made in the Government's opposition to his motion, we deny that request as unnecessary.

Case: 13-4750

Document: 003111535715

Page: 1

DLD-158

Date Filed: 02/19/2014

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-4750
___________
IN RE: JOHN GASSEW,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2:10-cr-00045-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 24, 2014
Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 19, 2014)
_________
OPINION
_________

PER CURIAM
In 2012, Petitioner John Gassew was convicted of two counts of robbery in violation of
the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and two counts of carrying and using a firearm during a
crime of violence. The District Court sentenced Gassew to 444 months’ imprisonment, we
affirmed that judgment, see United States v. Gassew, 519 F. App’x 764, 765 (3d Cir. 2013),
and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.

Case: 13-4750

Document: 003111535715

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/19/2014

Shortly after our decision, Gassew, proceeding pro se, moved the District Court for
copies of “All Exhibits, Trial Transcripts, Motions, Sentence Transcripts, as well as video
recordings, of the Trial in this matter.” The Government opposed the motion. In December
2013, when the motion was still pending, Gassew filed this pro se petition for a writ of
mandamus, setting forth reasons why the requested materials should be provided to him. On
January 16, 2014, the District Court granted his motion. In light of that decision, we will deny
Gassew’s mandamus petition as moot.1

1

To the extent that Gassew asks us to take judicial notice of certain statements made in the
Government’s opposition to his motion, we deny that request as unnecessary.
2