In re: Stevenson v., 00-7819 (2001)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 00-7819
Visitors: 19
Filed: Mar. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7819 In Re: JAMES STEVENSON, Petitioner. Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-119-5) Submitted: March 13, 2001 Decided: March 23, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Stevenson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Frederick Stevenson pet
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7819 In Re: JAMES STEVENSON, Petitioner. Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-119-5) Submitted: March 13, 2001 Decided: March 23, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Stevenson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Frederick Stevenson peti..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7819 In Re: JAMES STEVENSON, Petitioner. Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-119-5) Submitted: March 13, 2001 Decided: March 23, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Stevenson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Frederick Stevenson petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to act upon his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). The district court entered a final order on March 8, 2001, denying relief on Stevenson’s § 2254 motion. Accordingly, we deny the man- damus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
Source: CourtListener
