Filed: Nov. 15, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2148 In re: CLAUDE WENDELL BELLAMY, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (7:99-cr-00049-F-1) Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claude Wendell Bellamy, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Claude Wendell Bellamy petitions for a writ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2148 In re: CLAUDE WENDELL BELLAMY, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (7:99-cr-00049-F-1) Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claude Wendell Bellamy, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Claude Wendell Bellamy petitions for a writ o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2148 In re: CLAUDE WENDELL BELLAMY, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (7:99-cr-00049-F-1) Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claude Wendell Bellamy, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Claude Wendell Bellamy petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing the district court to act on his August 13, 2012 motion. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court denied the motion on September 4, 2012. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Bellamy’s motion, 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
