Filed: Jun. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1290 In Re: VICTOR WARDELL WRIGHT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:06-cr-00038-DKC-1; 8:08-cv-02830-DKC) Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished by per curiam opinion. Victor Wardell Wright, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Victor Wardell Wright petition
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1290 In Re: VICTOR WARDELL WRIGHT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:06-cr-00038-DKC-1; 8:08-cv-02830-DKC) Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished by per curiam opinion. Victor Wardell Wright, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Victor Wardell Wright petitions..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1290 In Re: VICTOR WARDELL WRIGHT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:06-cr-00038-DKC-1; 8:08-cv-02830-DKC) Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished by per curiam opinion. Victor Wardell Wright, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Victor Wardell Wright petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the United States to respond to his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006). Because the United States filed the response on June 4, 2009, we conclude that Wright’s petition is moot. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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
