Filed: Jul. 24, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1496 In re: MARK STEPHEN CARRON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (No. 5:10-cr-00794-MBS-1) Submitted: July 16, 2013 Decided: July 24, 2013 Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Stephen Carron, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Stephen Carron petitions
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1496 In re: MARK STEPHEN CARRON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (No. 5:10-cr-00794-MBS-1) Submitted: July 16, 2013 Decided: July 24, 2013 Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Stephen Carron, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Stephen Carron petitions f..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1496 In re: MARK STEPHEN CARRON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (No. 5:10-cr-00794-MBS-1) Submitted: July 16, 2013 Decided: July 24, 2013 Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Stephen Carron, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Stephen Carron petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for issuance of an amended judgment in his criminal case. 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 issued the amended judgment on June 6, 2013. Accordingly, because the district court has recently granted Carron’s request, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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
