Filed: Sep. 24, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1773 IN RE: STEVEN JAMES HALL, a/k/a Contourimpco, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (1:08-cr-00015-MR-1) Submitted: September 19, 2013 Decided: September 24, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven James Hall, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven J. Hall petitions for a writ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1773 IN RE: STEVEN JAMES HALL, a/k/a Contourimpco, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (1:08-cr-00015-MR-1) Submitted: September 19, 2013 Decided: September 24, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven James Hall, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven J. Hall petitions for a writ o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1773 IN RE: STEVEN JAMES HALL, a/k/a Contourimpco, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (1:08-cr-00015-MR-1) Submitted: September 19, 2013 Decided: September 24, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven James Hall, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven J. Hall petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court recently denied the motion. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
