In re Luellen

Fourth Circuit

In re Luellen

463 F. App'x 177

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 2, 2012

DocketNo. 11-1992

StatusPublished

This text of 463 F. App'x 177 (In re Luellen) 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 Luellen, 463 F. App'x 177 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[178]*178Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Scott E. Luellen petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.A § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. The district court has now ruled on Luellen’s § 2255 motion. Thus, we find that Luel-len’s petition alleging delay is moot. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. We grant Luellen’s motions to file an oversize brief and to proceed in forma pauper-is, and deny his motions for a transcript at Government expense, for a certifícate of appealability, to amend/correct his mandamus petition, and to clarify. 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

[178]*178Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Scott E. Luellen petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.A § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. The district court has now ruled on Luellen’s § 2255 motion. Thus, we find that Luel-len’s petition alleging delay is moot. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. We grant Luellen’s motions to file an oversize brief and to proceed in forma pauper-is, and deny his motions for a transcript at Government expense, for a certifícate of appealability, to amend/correct his mandamus petition, and to clarify. 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)

463 F. App'x 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-luellen-ca4-2012.