Filed: Jul. 24, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6666 In Re: VINCENT EUGENE LINEBERGER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-568) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 24, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Eugene Lineberger, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On May 8, 2001, Vincent Eugene Lin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6666 In Re: VINCENT EUGENE LINEBERGER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-568) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 24, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Eugene Lineberger, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On May 8, 2001, Vincent Eugene Line..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6666 In Re: VINCENT EUGENE LINEBERGER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-568) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 24, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Eugene Lineberger, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On May 8, 2001, Vincent Eugene Lineberger filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to act on his various motions filed in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) case filed on November 21, 2000. The district court entered orders in the § 2255 proceeding on February 20, 2001, and on April 17, 2001. Because the district court has acted within six months of the filing of the petition, we find no unreasonable delay. Thus, mandamus relief is not warranted. Accordingly while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
