Filed: May 26, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1363 In Re: WENDY B. DAUBERMAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cr-00040-HEH-2) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wendy B. Dauberman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wendy B. Dauberman petitions for a writ of mandamus, allegi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1363 In Re: WENDY B. DAUBERMAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cr-00040-HEH-2) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wendy B. Dauberman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wendy B. Dauberman petitions for a writ of mandamus, allegin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1363
In Re: WENDY B. DAUBERMAN,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:07-cr-00040-HEH-2)
Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wendy B. Dauberman, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wendy B. Dauberman petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on her 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. She 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
has denied Dauberman’s § 2255 motion, without prejudice.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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