Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    In Re: Lamont V., 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Leopold F. Lamont filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the appeals court to direct the district court to rule on his motion for transcripts at government expense. The appeals court denied the mandamus petition as moot because the district court had recently acted on Lamont's motion for transcripts. The appeals court granted Lamont's request to proceed in forma pauperis but found that oral arguments were not necessary since the facts and legal issues were clear based on the filed documents.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    In Re: Lamont V., 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Leopold F. Lamont filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the appeals court to direct the district court to rule on his motion for transcripts at government expense. The appeals court denied the mandamus petition as moot because the district court had recently acted on Lamont's motion for transcripts. The appeals court granted Lamont's request to proceed in forma pauperis but found that oral arguments were not necessary since the facts and legal issues were clear based on the filed documents.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-09-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6236

    Original Title

    In Re: Lamont v., 4th Cir. (1999)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Leopold F. Lamont filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the appeals court to direct the district court to rule on his motion for transcripts at government expense. The appeals court denied the mandamus petition as moot because the district court had recently acted on Lamont's motion for transcripts. The appeals court granted Lamont's request to proceed in forma pauperis but found that oral arguments were not necessary since the facts and legal issues were clear based on the filed documents.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Lamont V., 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Leopold F. Lamont filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the appeals court to direct the district court to rule on his motion for transcripts at government expense. The appeals court denied the mandamus petition as moot because the district court had recently acted on Lamont's motion for transcripts. The appeals court granted Lamont's request to proceed in forma pauperis but found that oral arguments were not necessary since the facts and legal issues were clear based on the filed documents.

    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. 99-6236

    In Re: LEOPOLD F. LAMONT,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

    Submitted:

    July 20, 1999

    (CR-96-101-V)

    Decided:

    September 24, 1999

    Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Leopold F. Lamont, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Leopold F. Lamont filed this petition for a writ of mandamus
    seeking to have this court direct the district court to act on his
    motion for transcripts at government expense.
    has recently acted on this motion.

    The district court

    Accordingly, while we grant

    leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition


    as moot.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before


    the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    PETITION DENIED

    You might also like