Filed: Feb. 20, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1958 In re: MARLON CORTEZ ROSS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:15-cr-00271-WO-1) Submitted: February 18, 2020 Decided: February 20, 2020 Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marlon Cortez Ross, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marlon Cortez Ross petitions for a writ of mandamus
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1958 In re: MARLON CORTEZ ROSS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:15-cr-00271-WO-1) Submitted: February 18, 2020 Decided: February 20, 2020 Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marlon Cortez Ross, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marlon Cortez Ross petitions for a writ of mandamus,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1958
In re: MARLON CORTEZ ROSS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:15-cr-00271-WO-1)
Submitted: February 18, 2020 Decided: February 20, 2020
Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marlon Cortez Ross, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marlon Cortez Ross petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court
has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. He seeks an order from
this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals
that the district court issued an opinion denying and dismissing Ross’ motion on
October 22, 2019. Accordingly, because the district court has decided Ross’ case, we deny
the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2