Filed: Apr. 18, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7358 In Re: ERNEST EARL MCLAMB, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-98-62, CA-00-243-F) Submitted: April 3, 2003 Decided: April 18, 2003 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest Earl McLamb, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ernest Earl McLamb petitions for a wri
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7358 In Re: ERNEST EARL MCLAMB, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-98-62, CA-00-243-F) Submitted: April 3, 2003 Decided: April 18, 2003 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest Earl McLamb, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ernest Earl McLamb petitions for a writ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7358 In Re: ERNEST EARL MCLAMB, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-98-62, CA-00-243-F) Submitted: April 3, 2003 Decided: April 18, 2003 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest Earl McLamb, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ernest Earl McLamb petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. After McLamb filed the instant mandamus petition, the district court ruled on his § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we deny McLamb’s mandamus petition as moot but grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense 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
