Filed: Mar. 11, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2550 In Re: JERRY LYNN HIGH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:89-cr-00025-SB-1) Submitted: February 28, 2013 Decided: March 11, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Lynn High, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerry Lynn High petitions for a writ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2550 In Re: JERRY LYNN HIGH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:89-cr-00025-SB-1) Submitted: February 28, 2013 Decided: March 11, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Lynn High, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerry Lynn High petitions for a writ ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2550 In Re: JERRY LYNN HIGH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:89-cr-00025-SB-1) Submitted: February 28, 2013 Decided: March 11, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Lynn High, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerry Lynn High petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion to set aside the criminal judgment. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court denied the motion on February 25, 2013. Accordingly, because the district court decided the motion, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant High 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
