Filed: Sep. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1819 In re: MOORTHY SRINIVASAN RAM, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:09-cr-00020-HEH-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Moorthy Srinivasan Ram, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Moorthy Srini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1819 In re: MOORTHY SRINIVASAN RAM, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:09-cr-00020-HEH-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Moorthy Srinivasan Ram, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Moorthy Sriniv..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1819 In re: MOORTHY SRINIVASAN RAM, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:09-cr-00020-HEH-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Moorthy Srinivasan Ram, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Moorthy Srinivasan Ram petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 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 denied Ram’s motion on August 29, 2013. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Ram’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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
