Filed: Aug. 31, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6782 In Re: ROBERT DION SAVOY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-398-A, CA-94-1179-AM) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 31, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Dion Savoy, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6782 In Re: ROBERT DION SAVOY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-398-A, CA-94-1179-AM) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 31, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Dion Savoy, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rober..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6782
In Re: ROBERT DION SAVOY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CR-90-398-A, CA-94-1179-AM)
Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 31, 2000
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Dion Savoy, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert D. Savoy brought this petition for writ of mandamus
requesting this court to order the district court to vacate its
August 5, 1996 order denying his motion filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). He contends that the district
court failed to address an issue raised in that motion.
Savoy appealed from the district court’s August 5, 1996 order,
but he failed to timely raise this issue in that appeal. Savoy’s
oversight does not present such an extraordinary situation as to
warrant the drastic remedy of mandamus relief. See Kerr v. United
States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard,
811 F.2d
818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987); In re United Steelworkers,
595 F.2d 958,
960 (4th Cir. 1979) (mandamus not substitute for appeal). There-
fore, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2