Kelvin Gould v. City of Ne

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [998331728-2], denying Motion for other relief [998313024-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998282684-2] Originating case number: 2:09-cv-00571-JBF-JEB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998391465] [10-6205]

Kelvin Gould v. City of Ne

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6205 Document: 30

Date Filed: 07/30/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6205 KELVIN GOULD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CITY OF NE; JEFFREY COLE ROUNTREE, Attorney; TYRONE C. JOHNSON, Attorney; ARTISHA K. TODD, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00571-JBF-JEB) Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: July 30, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin Gould, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6205 Document: 30

Date Filed: 07/30/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Kelvin Gould seeks to appeal the district court's

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. In his

petition, Gould claimed that he had been in custody for three years awaiting trial on several charges and his continued

detention pending resolution of those charges entitled him to habeas relief. Gould was convicted of the state charges while Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as

this appeal was pending. moot.

We also deny all of Gould's pending motions including:

the motion for transcripts at government expense; the motion to withdraw/relieve/substitute final judgment; with and oral the counsel; motion the motion for appeal of We legal

for

"Faretta" the

hearing. and

dispense

argument

because

facts

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2