Filed: Oct. 16, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6963 In Re: VINCENT EUGENE LINEBERGER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-568-3-1MU) Submitted: August 13, 2002 Decided: Occtober 16, 2002 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Vincent Eugene Lineber
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6963 In Re: VINCENT EUGENE LINEBERGER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-568-3-1MU) Submitted: August 13, 2002 Decided: Occtober 16, 2002 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Vincent Eugene Lineberg..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6963 In Re: VINCENT EUGENE LINEBERGER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-568-3-1MU) Submitted: August 13, 2002 Decided: Occtober 16, 2002 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Vincent Eugene Lineberger filed this petition for writ of mandamus seeking to have this court direct the district court to act on three motions pending in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action. The district court entered an order in the § 2255 proceeding on April 26, 2002. Because the district court has acted within six months of the filing of the petition, we find no unreasonable delay. Accordingly, although we grant Lineberger’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
