Filed: Feb. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2457 In re: ROBERT LEE SAUNDERS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:10-cr-00018-FPS-JSK-1) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Saunders, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Saunders peti
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2457 In re: ROBERT LEE SAUNDERS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:10-cr-00018-FPS-JSK-1) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Saunders, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Saunders petit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2457 In re: ROBERT LEE SAUNDERS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:10-cr-00018-FPS-JSK-1) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Saunders, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Saunders petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion to reduce his sentence. 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 Saunders’ motion on November 23, 2015. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Saunders’ 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
