In Re: Nathaniel Rice v., 14-1973 (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 14-1973
Visitors: 70
Filed: Jan. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1973 In re: NATHANIEL DANTE RICE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:02-cr-00153-JAB-1) Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Dante Rice, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Dante Rice p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1973 In re: NATHANIEL DANTE RICE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:02-cr-00153-JAB-1) Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Dante Rice, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Dante Rice pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1973
In re: NATHANIEL DANTE RICE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:02-cr-00153-JAB-1)
Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Dante Rice, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Dante Rice petitions for a writ of mandamus,
seeking immediate release from imprisonment after the district
court vacated Rice’s sentence upon his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that
the district court held a resentencing hearing and Rice was
released. Accordingly, 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
Source: CourtListener