Filed: May 11, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7692 In Re: STEPHAN M. BULLIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-95-142) Submitted: April 20, 2005 Decided: May 11, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephan M. Bullis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stephan M. Bullis petitions for writ of mandamus,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7692 In Re: STEPHAN M. BULLIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-95-142) Submitted: April 20, 2005 Decided: May 11, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephan M. Bullis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stephan M. Bullis petitions for writ of mandamus, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7692 In Re: STEPHAN M. BULLIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-95-142) Submitted: April 20, 2005 Decided: May 11, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephan M. Bullis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stephan M. Bullis petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court dismissed Bullis’s § 2255 motion on March 28, 2005. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Bullis’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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 -
