Filed: Nov. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1832 In re: TAEMON LAMAR MASHORE, Petitioner. On Petition for Extraordinary Writ. (3:06-cr-00229-MHL-RCY-1; 3:17-cv-00434-MHL- RCY) Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 19, 2018 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Taemon Lamar Mashore, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CU
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1832 In re: TAEMON LAMAR MASHORE, Petitioner. On Petition for Extraordinary Writ. (3:06-cr-00229-MHL-RCY-1; 3:17-cv-00434-MHL- RCY) Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 19, 2018 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Taemon Lamar Mashore, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CUR..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1832
In re: TAEMON LAMAR MASHORE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Extraordinary Writ. (3:06-cr-00229-MHL-RCY-1; 3:17-cv-00434-MHL-
RCY)
Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 19, 2018
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Taemon Lamar Mashore, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Taemon Lamar Mashore has filed a self-styled “Motion for Leave to File Petition
for Extraordinary Writ of Error,” alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). Mashore asks this court to adjudicate his § 2255 motion in
the first instance or, alternatively, to direct the district court to act. Our review of the
district court’s docket reveals that, in an order that was issued on October 19, 2018, the
district court dismissed the § 2255 motion on timeliness grounds. Accordingly, because
the district court has recently decided Mashore’s 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