Filed: Nov. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2202 In re: LAMONT DEMETRESS BOLDEN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:12-cr-00364-D-1) Submitted: November 16, 2017 Decided: November 20, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamont Demetress Bolden, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lamont Demetress Bolden pet
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2202 In re: LAMONT DEMETRESS BOLDEN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:12-cr-00364-D-1) Submitted: November 16, 2017 Decided: November 20, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamont Demetress Bolden, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lamont Demetress Bolden peti..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2202
In re: LAMONT DEMETRESS BOLDEN,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:12-cr-00364-D-1)
Submitted: November 16, 2017 Decided: November 20, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lamont Demetress Bolden, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lamont Demetress Bolden petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the
district court has unduly delayed acting on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a
sentence reduction. 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 granted Bolden’s
motion on October 11, 2017. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided
Bolden’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