Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Jose Maldonado V., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Jose Perez Maldonado's petition for a writ of mandamus. Maldonado had alleged that the district court unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. However, the Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's docket and found that the district court had denied Maldonado's § 2255 motion on April 6, 2015. Therefore, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus as moot since the district court had already acted on Maldonado's case. The Court of Appeals also granted Maldonado leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-06-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-1139

    Original Title

    In Re: Jose Maldonado v., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Jose Perez Maldonado's petition for a writ of mandamus. Maldonado had alleged that the district court unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. However, the Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's docket and found that the district court had denied Maldonado's § 2255 motion on April 6, 2015. Therefore, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus as moot since the district court had already acted on Maldonado's case. The Court of Appeals also granted Maldonado leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Jose Maldonado V., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Jose Perez Maldonado's petition for a writ of mandamus. Maldonado had alleged that the district court unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. However, the Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's docket and found that the district court had denied Maldonado's § 2255 motion on April 6, 2015. Therefore, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus as moot since the district court had already acted on Maldonado's case. The Court of Appeals also granted Maldonado leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

    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. 15-1139

    In re:

    JOSE PEREZ MALDONADO,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (1:12-cv-00357-WO-JLW; 1:09-cr-00125-WO-1)

    Submitted:

    June 16, 2015

    Decided:

    June 18, 2015

    Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jose Perez Maldonado, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jose

    Perez

    Maldonado

    petitions

    for

    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

    courts docket reveals that the court denied Maldonados 2255


    motion

    on

    April

    6,

    2015.

    Accordingly,

    because

    the

    district

    court has decided Maldonados case, we deny as moot the amended


    mandamus petition.
    We

    dispense

    contentions

    with
    are

    We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.


    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the

    facts

    and

    the

    materials

    legal
    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    PETITION DENIED

    You might also like