In re Anderson

Fourth Circuit

In re Anderson

86 F. App'x 670

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 12, 2004·No. No. 03-7579·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Marvin R. Anderson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court recently denied his motion. See United States v. Anderson, No. CR-99-239 [671] (S.D.W.Va. Dec. 2, 2003). Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Anderson’s case, 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Marvin R. Anderson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court recently denied his motion. See United States v. Anderson, No. CR-99-239 [671] (S.D.W.Va. Dec. 2, 2003). Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Anderson’s case, 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

In re Anderson, 86 F. App'x 670 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

86 F. App'x 670 (In re Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related