Filed: Oct. 06, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1388 In Re: PABLO TRUJILLO-GUDINO, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:05-cr-00317-RJC-1; 3:07-cv-00463-RJC) Submitted: August 16, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pablo Trujillo-Gudino, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pablo Trujillo-Gudino petition
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1388 In Re: PABLO TRUJILLO-GUDINO, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:05-cr-00317-RJC-1; 3:07-cv-00463-RJC) Submitted: August 16, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pablo Trujillo-Gudino, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pablo Trujillo-Gudino petitions..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1388
In Re: PABLO TRUJILLO-GUDINO,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:05-cr-00317-RJC-1; 3:07-cv-00463-RJC)
Submitted: August 16, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pablo Trujillo-Gudino, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pablo Trujillo-Gudino petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting
on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 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 denied Trujillo-Gudino’s § 2255 motion in an order entered
on August 12, 2010. Accordingly, because the district court has
recently decided Trujillo-Gudino’s case, we deny the mandamus
petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
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