Filed: Sep. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1460 In re: JOHN A. BRYANT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:09-CR-00347-REP-1) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 25, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John A. Bryant, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John A. Bryant petitions for
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1460 In re: JOHN A. BRYANT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:09-CR-00347-REP-1) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 25, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John A. Bryant, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John A. Bryant petitions for a..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1460
In re: JOHN A. BRYANT,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:09-CR-00347-REP-1)
Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 25, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John A. Bryant, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John A. Bryant petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging the district court has not responded to his inquiries
into the status of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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 entered an order on June 17, 2014, appointing
counsel for Bryant, directing the filing of briefs on an issue
identified by the court, and staying action on Bryant’s § 2255
motion pending further order of the court. Accordingly, because
the district court recently informed Bryant of the status of his
§ 2255 motion, 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 this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2