from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.” Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir.1996). Here, Kostyshyn does not challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence. He only contends that he should have been released on bail during the pendency of his violation of probation charges. The record reveals that the Superior Court held his violation of probation hearing on October 29, 2004, and determined that Kostyshyn did not violate his probation. Thus, because there is no pending violation of probation proceeding, there is no “actual injury traceable to the [respondent] and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7, 118 S.Ct. 978; see Weeks v. Wyrick, 638 F.2d 690, 693 (8th Cir.1981)(<HOLDING>). Accordingly, I will dismiss this claim. B.
holding appeal moot on this basis holding that an issue not raised on direct appeal of sentence is barred by the law of the case from presentation in a subsequent appeal holding that the settlement of a dispute generally renders a case moot holding that the repeal of a statute renders moot the question of its constitutionality and that the constitutionality of the new act does not arise on this appeal and    will be decided if and when it is presented holding that the lack of any ongoing appeal of weeks conviction renders moot the question of bail pending direct appeal