Filed: Dec. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2014 In re: ANTHONY GENE TRAPPIER, Petitioner, On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:09-cr-00340-TLW-1) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Gene Trappier, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Gene Trappier petitions for a writ of man
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2014 In re: ANTHONY GENE TRAPPIER, Petitioner, On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:09-cr-00340-TLW-1) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Gene Trappier, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Gene Trappier petitions for a writ of mand..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2014
In re: ANTHONY GENE TRAPPIER,
Petitioner,
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(4:09-cr-00340-TLW-1)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Gene Trappier, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Gene Trappier petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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 has
denied Trappier’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, 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 this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2