Filed: Feb. 16, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1815 In Re: CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:90-cr-00105; 2:08-cv-00588) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cleveland McLean, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cleveland
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1815 In Re: CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:90-cr-00105; 2:08-cv-00588) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cleveland McLean, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cleveland ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1815
In Re: CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(2:90-cr-00105; 2:08-cv-00588)
Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cleveland McLean, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cleveland McLean, Jr., petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting
on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion. He seeks an order from
this court directing the district court to act. Our review of
the district court’s docket reveals that, on September 13, 2010,
the district court denied McLean’s § 3582 motion. Accordingly,
because the district court has recently decided McLean’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