Filed: Jun. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2041 In Re: DONALD ELBERT LEWIS, a/k/a Peptone, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:12-cr-00068-FL-2) Submitted: May 28, 2015 Decided: June 2, 2015 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Elbert Lewis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donald Elbert Lewis petitions for a writ of mandamu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2041 In Re: DONALD ELBERT LEWIS, a/k/a Peptone, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:12-cr-00068-FL-2) Submitted: May 28, 2015 Decided: June 2, 2015 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Elbert Lewis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donald Elbert Lewis petitions for a writ of mandamus..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2041
In Re: DONALD ELBERT LEWIS, a/k/a Peptone,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(4:12-cr-00068-FL-2)
Submitted: May 28, 2015 Decided: June 2, 2015
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Elbert Lewis, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Elbert Lewis petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on 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 recently entered
an order disposing of all but one of Lewis’ claims, and
scheduling an evidentiary hearing as to that claim.
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