Filed: Jan. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: ALD-059 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 16-3865 _ IN RE: MICHAEL NORWOOD, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 1-15-cv-02996) _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. December 1, 2016 Before: MCKEE, JORDAN and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: January 11, 2017) _ OPINION * _ PER CURIAM Michael Norwood filed a petition for a writ of
Summary: ALD-059 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 16-3865 _ IN RE: MICHAEL NORWOOD, Petitioner _ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 1-15-cv-02996) _ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. December 1, 2016 Before: MCKEE, JORDAN and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: January 11, 2017) _ OPINION * _ PER CURIAM Michael Norwood filed a petition for a writ of ..
More
ALD-059 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-3865
___________
IN RE: MICHAEL NORWOOD,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 1-15-cv-02996)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 1, 2016
Before: MCKEE, JORDAN and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 11, 2017)
_________
OPINION *
_________
PER CURIAM
Michael Norwood filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
directing the District Court to rule on his amended motion under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255. The
District Court denied that motion on November 28, 2016. Thus, because Norwood has
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
received all of the relief he requested, his petition is now moot. We will therefore
dismiss it. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp.,
77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).
2