The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
092999np-pdf•Third Circuit disposition — 092999np-pdf
092999np-pdfCourt of Appeals for the Third CircuitOct 28, 2009
1
HLD-151 (August 31, 2009) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2999
___________
In re: MELVIN R. PETERSEN,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
District Court of the Virgin Islands
(Related to: D.V.I. Civ. No. 96-cv-0261)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 31, 2009
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 28, 2009)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM.
In July 2009, Melvin R. Petersen filed this pro se mandamus petition
requesting that the District Court act on his “18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) letter motion.”
Petersen first inquired by letter of the District Court what steps, if any, it was taking with
respect to his sentence following the 2007 amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines
regarding crack cocaine offenses. The court responded by letter on March 28, 2008
-- 1 of 2 --
2
stating that his case was under review and that the court “is actively processing these
cases, and you will be updated on your status in the very near future.” On January 15,
2009, Petersen filed a “motion to advance cause,” in which he requested that the District
Court take action.
When Petersen filed this mandamus petition, the District Court had not yet
acted on Petersen’s request. However, on September 15, 2009, the District Court ordered
the appointment of counsel and scheduled a hearing for resentencing pursuant to the
amended sentencing guidelines on October 7, 2009. Because Petersen has now received
the relief he sought–District Court action on his motion for resentencing–we will deny his
mandamus petition as moot.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.