Filed: Apr. 06, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6337 In Re: EDDIE THOMAS JACKSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-00-607; CA-02-4170-12-4) Submitted: March 12, 2004 Decided: April 6, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Thomas Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eddie Thomas Jackson pet
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6337 In Re: EDDIE THOMAS JACKSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-00-607; CA-02-4170-12-4) Submitted: March 12, 2004 Decided: April 6, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Thomas Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eddie Thomas Jackson peti..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6337 In Re: EDDIE THOMAS JACKSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-00-607; CA-02-4170-12-4) Submitted: March 12, 2004 Decided: April 6, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Thomas Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eddie Thomas Jackson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court recently denied his § 2255 motion. See United States v. Jackson, Nos. CR-00-607, CA-02-4170- 12-4 (D.S.C. Mar. 4, 2004). While we grant Jackson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot because the district court has recently decided the case. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED - 2 -
