Case ID: f-appx_187/html/0272-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re: Charles Edward O’NEIL, Petitioner.
    No. 06-6105.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 7, 2006.
    Decided: June 22, 2006.
    Charles Edward O’Neil, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Charles Edward O’Neil petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Rule 35(b) motion and other pending motions to correct or reduce his sentence. O’Neil seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court has recently denied these motions. Accordingly, though 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.