In Re Magloire

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

In Re Magloire

Opinion

Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

3-30-2006

In Re Magloire Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-1732

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

Recommended Citation "In Re Magloire " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1360. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1360

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HPS-39 (March 2006) NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 06-1732 ________________

IN RE: CARTER J. MAGLOIRE, Petitioner ____________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the District Court of the Virgin Islands (Related to Crim. No. 04-cr-00142-2) ___________________________________ Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro. March 10, 2006 BEFORE: CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES

Filed March 30, 2006 _______________________

OPINION _______________________

PER CURIAM.

Carter J. Magloire petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the District

Court to rule on his motion for a new trial in his criminal proceeding. For the reasons that

follow, we will deny the petition.

In February 2005, a jury in the District Court found Magloire guilty of

bringing in and harboring aliens in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1324

. Magloire filed a motion

for a new trial on March 1, 2005. In his mandamus petition, he asks us to order the

District Court to rule on his motions that have been pending “for at least six months.”

1 Our examination of the District Court’s docket indicates that the only such motion is his

motion for a new trial.

By order entered March 22, 2006, the District Court denied Magloire’s

motion for a new trial. Because the District Court has ruled on Magloire’s motion, we

will deny his mandamus petition as moot.

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished