Case ID: f-appx_139/html/0595-01.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: James Claude BAILEY, Petitioner.
    No. 05-6347.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2005.
    Decided July 28, 2005.
    James Claude Bailey, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before KING and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

James Claude Bailey petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion for immediate release. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we deny Bailey’s mandamus petition and his motion for appointment of counsel. We further deny as moot his motion for expedited response. 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