Filed: Apr. 05, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6118 In re: MARTELL WHITAKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-3207) Submitted: March 11, 2005 Decided: April 5, 2005 Before MOTZ, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martell Whitaker, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Martell Whitaker filed a petition for writ of mandam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6118 In re: MARTELL WHITAKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-3207) Submitted: March 11, 2005 Decided: April 5, 2005 Before MOTZ, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martell Whitaker, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Martell Whitaker filed a petition for writ of mandamu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6118 In re: MARTELL WHITAKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-3207) Submitted: March 11, 2005 Decided: April 5, 2005 Before MOTZ, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martell Whitaker, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Martell Whitaker filed a petition for writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his motion for reconsideration of that court’s order denying relief on Whitaker’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The district court ruled on the motion on February 3, 2005. Accordingly, the mandamus petition is now moot. Therefore, although we grant Whitaker’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for mandamus relief. 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. The motion to expedite consideration of this petition is denied as moot. PETITION DENIED - 2 -
