Filed: May 17, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: ALD-173 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 12-2100 _ In re: REGINALD YOUNG, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United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. 2:05-cr-00307-003) _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. May 3, 2012 Before: SLOVITER, FISHER AND WEIS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 17,2012) _ OPINION _ PER CURIAM. In this petition for mandamus, Reginald Young
Summary: ALD-173 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 12-2100 _ In re: REGINALD YOUNG, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United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. 2:05-cr-00307-003) _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. May 3, 2012 Before: SLOVITER, FISHER AND WEIS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 17,2012) _ OPINION _ PER CURIAM. In this petition for mandamus, Reginald Young a..
More
ALD-173 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-2100
___________
In re: REGINALD YOUNG,
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. 2:05-cr-00307-003)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
May 3, 2012
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER AND WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 17,2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
In this petition for mandamus, Reginald Young asks us to direct the “respondent”
to rule on his application for a certificate of appealability. In form, the petition reads less
like a request for mandamus and more like a motion to expedite proceedings. In any
case, it is moot; we denied Young’s request for a certificate of appealability. See United
States v. Young, C.A. No. 12-1577. Therefore, this “mandamus petition” will be denied,
as Young has obtained the ruling he seeks to compel. See Carr v. Am. Red Cross,
17
F.3d 671, 684 (3d Cir. 1994).
2