Filed: Sep. 11, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-601 In Re: LEOPOLD F. LAMONT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-96-101-V) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 11, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leopold F. Lamont, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Leopold F. La
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-601 In Re: LEOPOLD F. LAMONT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-96-101-V) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 11, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leopold F. Lamont, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Leopold F. Lam..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-601 In Re: LEOPOLD F. LAMONT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-96-101-V) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 11, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leopold F. Lamont, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Leopold F. Lamont filed this petition for writ of mandamus seeking to have this court direct the district court to act on his motion for preparation of transcripts at government expense pursu- ant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). The motion was filed in the dis- trict court on March 23, 1998. Because the delay in the district court has not exceeded six months, we find no unreasonable delay. Therefore, while we grant Lamont’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for mandamus relief. We dis- pense 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
