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Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential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 Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HPS-39 (March 2006) NOT PRECEDENTIAL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