Filed: Dec. 29, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2256 In Re: LARRY LAMONT BUSH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:06-cv-01631-AMD) Submitted: December 8, 2009 Decided: December 29, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Lamont Bush, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Bush petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging th
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2256 In Re: LARRY LAMONT BUSH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:06-cv-01631-AMD) Submitted: December 8, 2009 Decided: December 29, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Lamont Bush, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Bush petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging tha..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2256 In Re: LARRY LAMONT BUSH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:06-cv-01631-AMD) Submitted: December 8, 2009 Decided: December 29, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Lamont Bush, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Bush petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket sheet reveals that the district court issued a final opinion and order denying Bush’s motion on September 24, 2007. Accordingly, because the district court has decided the case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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
