Filed: Apr. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1164 In re: LAMAR KEITH GARVIN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:13-cr-00141-JAG-1) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 30, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamar Keith Garvin, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lamar Keith Garvin petitions
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1164 In re: LAMAR KEITH GARVIN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:13-cr-00141-JAG-1) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 30, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamar Keith Garvin, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lamar Keith Garvin petitions f..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1164
In re: LAMAR KEITH GARVIN,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:13-cr-00141-JAG-1)
Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 30, 2019
Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lamar Keith Garvin, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lamar Keith Garvin petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court
has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions and related request for
release on personal recognizance. 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
Garvin’s § 2255 motions and request for release on personal recognizance (which was
docketed as a motion to expedite) by order entered March 20, 2019. Accordingly,
because the district court has recently decided Garvin’s case, 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