Filed: Sep. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1741 In re: KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:18-hc-02027-D) Submitted: September 13, 2018 Decided: September 17, 2018 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kareem Jamal Currence, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kareem Jamal Currence
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1741 In re: KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:18-hc-02027-D) Submitted: September 13, 2018 Decided: September 17, 2018 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kareem Jamal Currence, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kareem Jamal Currence p..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1741
In re: KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:18-hc-02027-D)
Submitted: September 13, 2018 Decided: September 17, 2018
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kareem Jamal Currence, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kareem Jamal Currence petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking that we direct
the district court to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (2012), which directs a court to
conduct a hearing on a habeas motion not more than five days after the Respondent files
its return, unless for good cause additional time is allowed. The district court’s docket
indicates that the district court recently granted the Respondent’s motion to dismiss
Currence’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition and closed the underlying habeas matter.
Accordingly, we grant Currence’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, but 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