Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In re: Wheeler v., 00-7552 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7552 Visitors: 9
Filed: May 07, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7552 In Re: ERIC WHEELER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-272-1-T, CR-96-53) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 7, 2001 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Petition denied as moot by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Wheeler, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eric Wheele
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7552 In Re: ERIC WHEELER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-272-1-T, CR-96-53) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 7, 2001 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Petition denied as moot by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Wheeler, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eric Wheeler has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus from this court seeking to have us direct the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to review a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion pending before it. Wheeler’s motion was filed on December 27, 1999. He filed motions for leave to file a supplemental claim and to dismiss the indictment on July 21, 2000. Without any action by the district court as of October 23, 2000, Wheeler filed the petition for writ of mandamus in this court. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21(b), on February 22, 2001, we ordered the district court to respond to the mandamus petition within thirty days. On April 10, 2001, the dis- trict court entered judgment granting the § 2255 motion in part and denying it in part. Therefore, the requested relief is now moot and we deny the petition on that basis. We grant Wheeler’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED AS MOOT 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer