Filed: Feb. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2162 In re: DANIEL BROWN, a/k/a Daniel M. Brown, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:14-cv-03659-BHH) Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Brown, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Brown petit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2162 In re: DANIEL BROWN, a/k/a Daniel M. Brown, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:14-cv-03659-BHH) Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Brown, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Brown petiti..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2162
In re: DANIEL BROWN, a/k/a Daniel M. Brown,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(4:14-cv-03659-BHH)
Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Brown, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Brown petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging
unreasonable delay by the district court and seeking an order
directing the district court to act. Our review of the district
court’s docket sheet discloses that a final order was entered on
October 20, 2015, denying relief on Brown’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2012) petition and his motion to alter or amend the judgment.
Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
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