in Re: Khalil Abdul Hakim v. Hakim, C.A. No. 05-3565, as premature and not taken from a final

1
HPS-5(November 2005) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-4606
________________
IN RE: KHALIL ABDUL HAKIM,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to D.C. Crim. No. 02-cr-00131-1)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Fed. R. App. Pro. 21
November 4, 2005
Before: SCIRICA, CHIEF JUDGE, WEIS AND GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed : December 8, 2005)
________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Khalil Abdul Hakim, a federal prisoner, filed a motion to vacate
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. He is serving a term of imprisonment of 136 months for armed
bank robbery and weapons violations. Counsel was appointed to represent him, and an
evidentiary hearing was held on April 21, 2005. Dissatisfied with appointed counsel’s

-- 1 of 2 --

representation at the hearing, and convinced of the merits of his section 2255 motion,
Hakim filed a notice of appeal pro se on July 25, 2005. We dismissed this appeal, United
States v. Hakim, C.A. No. 05-3565, as premature and not taken from a final order as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In addition to taking the premature appeal, Hakim
submitted a petition for writ of mandamus, in which he again complained about appointed
counsel’s performance, and asked us to order the District Court to rule on his section
2255 motion.
We will deny the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. In an order
entered on October 20, 2005, the District Court ruled on Hakim’s section 2255 motion,
denying it. The District Court has acted, and we are, therefore, unable to fashion any
form of meaningful relief in this regard. See General Elec. Co. by Levit v. Cathcart, 980
F.2d 927, 934 (3d Cir. 1992). We note also that, on October 27, 2005, Hakim filed a
timely notice of appeal from this final order. The appeal has been docketed in this Court
at United States v. Hakim, C.A. No. 05-4868, giving Hakim a meaningful opportunity to
pursue his contentions to the extent permitted by law without the need to resort to
mandamus. See Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414,
1422 (3d Cir. 1991) (mandamus not substitute for appeal).
We will deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
2

-- 2 of 2 --