Filed: May 07, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1178 In Re: PHILLIP MACE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:08-cv-03216-DKC) Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 7, 2010 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Mace, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Phillip Mace petitions for a writ of mandamus, alle
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1178 In Re: PHILLIP MACE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:08-cv-03216-DKC) Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 7, 2010 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Mace, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Phillip Mace petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleg..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1178
In Re: PHILLIP MACE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:08-cv-03216-DKC)
Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 7, 2010
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip Mace, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Phillip Mace petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 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
granted Mace’s motion on April 12, 2010. Accordingly, because
the district court has recently decided Mace’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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
2