32:T50e,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"In Re: Jamal Hosendove v., 684 F. App'x 276","datePublished":"2017-04-04","legislationDate":"2017-04-04","citation":"In Re: Jamal Hosendove v., 684 F. App'x 276 (4th Cir. 2017)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit","description":"Read the full text of In Re: Jamal Hosendove v. (In Re: Jamal Hosendove v., 684 F. App'x 276 (4th Cir. 2017)). This legal opinion, filed in 2017-04-04, from the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/in-re-jamal-hosendove-v--4157853"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/in-re-jamal-hosendove-v--4157853","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, In Re: Jamal Hosendove v., Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, In Re: Jamal Hosendove v., 684 F. App'x 276 (4th Cir. 2017)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}34:T500,

*1 Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamal Kwame Hosendove, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jamal Kwame Hosendove petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED