Filed: Feb. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2440 In re: JOHN ROMA BRYAN, III, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:15-cr-00015-JPJ-PMS-6) Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019 Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Roma Bryan, III, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Roma Bryan, III, petitions for a wri
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2440 In re: JOHN ROMA BRYAN, III, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:15-cr-00015-JPJ-PMS-6) Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019 Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Roma Bryan, III, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Roma Bryan, III, petitions for a writ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2440
In re: JOHN ROMA BRYAN, III,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(2:15-cr-00015-JPJ-PMS-6)
Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019
Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Roma Bryan, III, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Roma Bryan, III, petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court
has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 Bryan’s § 2255 motion on December 4, 2018.
Accordingly, because the district court has recently ruled on Bryan’s motion, 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