Filed: Mar. 28, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1154 In Re: GROVER L. DILLON, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:98-cr-00140-1; 1:10-cv-00266) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 28, 2012 Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Grover L. Dillon, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Grover L. Dillon
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1154 In Re: GROVER L. DILLON, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:98-cr-00140-1; 1:10-cv-00266) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 28, 2012 Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Grover L. Dillon, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Grover L. Dillon,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1154
In Re: GROVER L. DILLON, SR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:98-cr-00140-1; 1:10-cv-00266)
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 28, 2012
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Grover L. Dillon, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Grover L. Dillon, Sr., petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting
on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. He seeks an
order from this court directing the district court to act. Our
review of the district court’s docket reveals that, on February
14, 2012, the district court denied Dillon’s § 2255 motion.
Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided
Dillon’s case, 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