Filed: May 26, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1051 In Re: CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:90-cr-00105; 2:08-cv-00588) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cleveland McLean, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cleveland McLean, Jr., petitions for a writ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1051 In Re: CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:90-cr-00105; 2:08-cv-00588) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cleveland McLean, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cleveland McLean, Jr., petitions for a writ o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1051
In Re: CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(2:90-cr-00105; 2:08-cv-00588)
Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cleveland McLean, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cleveland McLean, Jr., petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting
on his 18 U.S.C. ยง 3582 (2006) motion. He seeks an order from
this court directing the district court to act. Although we
find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is
not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without
prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the
district court does not act expeditiously. 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2