Filed: Apr. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1040 In Re: JOKWAN LAMAR HARVEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:13-cr-00022-H-1) Submitted: April 3, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jokwan Lamar Harvey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jokwan Lamar Harvey has
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1040 In Re: JOKWAN LAMAR HARVEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:13-cr-00022-H-1) Submitted: April 3, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jokwan Lamar Harvey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jokwan Lamar Harvey has ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1040
In Re: JOKWAN LAMAR HARVEY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:13-cr-00022-H-1)
Submitted: April 3, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jokwan Lamar Harvey, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jokwan Lamar Harvey has petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus. In his
petition, Harvey asks this court to order the district court to rule on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court
recently disposed of Harvey’s habeas motion. Accordingly, because the district court has
recently decided Harvey’s § 2255 motion, 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