Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    In Re: Horace Brown V., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Horace Brown filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court had unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found that the district court had ruled on Brown's § 2255 motion, so it denied the mandamus petition as moot. The court also granted Brown's request to proceed in forma pauperis and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    In Re: Horace Brown V., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Horace Brown filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court had unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found that the district court had ruled on Brown's § 2255 motion, so it denied the mandamus petition as moot. The court also granted Brown's request to proceed in forma pauperis and dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-03-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-2261

    Original Title

    In re: Horace Brown v., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Horace Brown filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court had unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found that the district court had ruled on Brown's § 2255 motion, so it denied the mandamus petition as moot. The court also granted Brown's request to proceed in forma pauperis and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    In Re: Horace Brown V., 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Horace Brown filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court had unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found that the district court had ruled on Brown's § 2255 motion, so it denied the mandamus petition as moot. The court also granted Brown's request to proceed in forma pauperis and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-2261

    In re:

    HORACE LINTON BROWN,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus


    (Nos. 8:06-cr-00140-PJM-1; 8:12-cv-03355-PJM)

    Submitted:

    February 25, 2014

    Decided:

    March 4, 2014

    Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Horace Linton Brown, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Horace Linton Brown petitions for a writ of mandamus,
    alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on
    his motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012).

    He seeks an order

    from this court directing the district court to act.

    Our review

    of the record discloses that the district court has ruled on the
    2255 motion.

    Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma

    pauperis and 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

    You might also like