In re: Jeffrey Martinovich, 18-2163 (2019)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 18-2163
Visitors: 75
Filed: Feb. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2163 In re: JEFFREY A. MARTINOVICH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:12-cr-00101-AWA-RJK-1; 4:18-cv-00028-AWA) Submitted: February 21, 2019 Decided: February 25, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey A. Martinovich, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2163 In re: JEFFREY A. MARTINOVICH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:12-cr-00101-AWA-RJK-1; 4:18-cv-00028-AWA) Submitted: February 21, 2019 Decided: February 25, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey A. Martinovich, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey A...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2163
In re: JEFFREY A. MARTINOVICH,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(4:12-cr-00101-AWA-RJK-1; 4:18-cv-00028-AWA)
Submitted: February 21, 2019 Decided: February 25, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey A. Martinovich, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey A. Martinovich petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court
has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order
from this court directing the district court to order the Government to respond. Our
review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court has recently denied
numerous motions and ordered the Government to respond to Martinovich’s motion.
Accordingly, because Martinovich has received the relief he requests, we deny the
mandamus petition as moot. 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
Source: CourtListener