Filed: Mar. 17, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 17, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2274 In re: DERICK FALLIN, a/k/a Black, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cr-00353-RDB-1) Submitted: December 20, 2019 Decided: March 17, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derick Fallin, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Derick Fallin petitions for a writ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2274 In re: DERICK FALLIN, a/k/a Black, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cr-00353-RDB-1) Submitted: December 20, 2019 Decided: March 17, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derick Fallin, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Derick Fallin petitions for a writ o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-2274
In re: DERICK FALLIN, a/k/a Black,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cr-00353-RDB-1)
Submitted: December 20, 2019 Decided: March 17, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derick Fallin, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derick Fallin petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly
delayed acting on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (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 denied Fallin’s § 3582(c)(2) motion on November 15, 2019.
Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Fallin’s case, we deny the
mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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