In re Brillhart

Fourth Circuit

In re Brillhart

442 F. App'x 814

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 11, 2011

DocketNo. 10-2192

StatusPublished

This text of 442 F. App'x 814 (In re Brillhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Brillhart, 442 F. App'x 814 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Edward Brillhart petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is deducting more than twenty percent of his trust account balance for payment of filing fees, in violation of Torres v. O’Quinn, 612 F.3d 287 (4th Cir.2010). He seeks an order from this court directing the BOP to comply with Torres. Our review of district court records confirms that the BOP is now in compliance with Torres. Accordingly, although 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.

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

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Edward Brillhart petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is deducting more than twenty percent of his trust account balance for payment of filing fees, in violation of Torres v. O’Quinn, 612 F.3d 287 (4th Cir.2010). He seeks an order from this court directing the BOP to comply with Torres. Our review of district court records confirms that the BOP is now in compliance with Torres. Accordingly, although 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 F. App'x 814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brillhart-ca4-2011.