Filed: Feb. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1033 In Re: MARSHALL JERMAINE PARKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:07-cr-00058-NCT-1; 1:13-cv-00628-NCT-JEP) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marshall Jermaine Parker, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marshall Jermaine Par
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1033 In Re: MARSHALL JERMAINE PARKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:07-cr-00058-NCT-1; 1:13-cv-00628-NCT-JEP) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marshall Jermaine Parker, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marshall Jermaine Park..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1033
In Re: MARSHALL JERMAINE PARKER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:07-cr-00058-NCT-1; 1:13-cv-00628-NCT-JEP)
Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marshall Jermaine Parker, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marshall Jermaine Parker petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion to vacate his sentence.
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 has granted Parker’s motion. See United
States v. Parker, No. 1:07-cr-00058-NCT-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 23,
2014). Accordingly, because the district court has recently
decided Parker’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot.
We grant 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