Filed: Nov. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2274 In re: DALTON LAQUANE SMITH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:13-cr-01038-JFA-1; 3:15-cv-04225-JFA) Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 30, 2018 Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dalton Laquane Smith, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dal
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2274 In re: DALTON LAQUANE SMITH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:13-cr-01038-JFA-1; 3:15-cv-04225-JFA) Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 30, 2018 Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dalton Laquane Smith, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dalt..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2274
In re: DALTON LAQUANE SMITH,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:13-cr-01038-JFA-1; 3:15-cv-04225-JFA)
Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 30, 2018
Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dalton Laquane Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dalton Laquan Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district
court has unduly delayed ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an
order from this court directing the district court to act. The record reflects that the district
court issued an opinion and order addressing the merits of Smith’s § 2255 motion, and
Smith has therefore received the relief he requests in this petition. Accordingly, although
we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny as moot Smith’s petition for a writ
of mandamus. 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