Filed: Apr. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6305 In Re: ROY KWACZALA, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-142) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 23, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Kwaczala, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roy Kwaczala filed a petition for a writ of mandamu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6305 In Re: ROY KWACZALA, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-142) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 23, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Kwaczala, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roy Kwaczala filed a petition for a writ of mandamus..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6305 In Re: ROY KWACZALA, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-142) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 23, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Kwaczala, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roy Kwaczala filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this court issue an order directing the district court to act on his petition for writ of error coram nobis. He requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis with regard to his mandamus petition. A review of the district court docket reveals that the district court recently denied Kwaczala’s petition for writ of error coram nobis. See Kwaczala v. United States, No. CR-93-142 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2001). Accordingly, although we grant Kwaczala’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we dismiss the mandamus 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. DISMISSED 2
