Filed: Jun. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1139 In re: JOSE PEREZ MALDONADO, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:12-cv-00357-WO-JLW; 1:09-cr-00125-WO-1) Submitted: June 16, 2015 Decided: June 18, 2015 Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Perez Maldonado, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jose Perez
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1139 In re: JOSE PEREZ MALDONADO, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:12-cv-00357-WO-JLW; 1:09-cr-00125-WO-1) Submitted: June 16, 2015 Decided: June 18, 2015 Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Perez Maldonado, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jose Perez M..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1139
In re: JOSE PEREZ MALDONADO,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:12-cv-00357-WO-JLW; 1:09-cr-00125-WO-1)
Submitted: June 16, 2015 Decided: June 18, 2015
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose Perez Maldonado, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Perez Maldonado 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 court denied Maldonado’s § 2255
motion on April 6, 2015. Accordingly, because the district
court has decided Maldonado’s case, we deny as moot the amended
mandamus petition. 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