Filed: Mar. 19, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2464 In Re: PRISCILLA HINES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-626-5-BO) Submitted: March 6, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Priscilla Hines, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Priscilla Hines fil
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2464 In Re: PRISCILLA HINES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-626-5-BO) Submitted: March 6, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Priscilla Hines, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Priscilla Hines file..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2464 In Re: PRISCILLA HINES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-626-5-BO) Submitted: March 6, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Priscilla Hines, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Priscilla Hines filed this mandamus petition challenging the district court’s remand of her action alleging error in the amount of her social security retirement checks. Because this petition seeks the identical relief sought in an earlier petition filed by Hines, which was denied by this court, and because Hines presents no reason to question the propriety of that decision, we deny mandamus relief. See In re: Hines, No. 00-1924 (4th Cir. Nov. 28, 2000) (unpublished). 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
