Filed: Jun. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1498 In Re: VICENTE BILORA MBENGA, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:09-cr-00548-RDB-6; 1:13-cv-01424-RDB) Submitted: June 2, 2015 Decided: June 5, 2015 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vicente Bilora Mbenga, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Vicente Bilora Mbenga petitions for a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1498 In Re: VICENTE BILORA MBENGA, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:09-cr-00548-RDB-6; 1:13-cv-01424-RDB) Submitted: June 2, 2015 Decided: June 5, 2015 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vicente Bilora Mbenga, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Vicente Bilora Mbenga petitions for a ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1498
In Re: VICENTE BILORA MBENGA,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:09-cr-00548-RDB-6; 1:13-cv-01424-RDB)
Submitted: June 2, 2015 Decided: June 5, 2015
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vicente Bilora Mbenga, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vicente Bilora Mbenga 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 denied Mbenga’s
motion on May 22, 2015. Accordingly, because the district court
has recently decided Mbenga’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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2