Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In Re: Mettetal v., 01-4835 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-4835 Visitors: 56
Filed: Apr. 12, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-4835 In Re: RAY WALLACE METTETAL, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-96-34) No. 01-7779 RAY WALLACE METTETAL, JR., a/k/a Steven Ray Maupin, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-01-76-7) Submitted: February 28, 2002 Decided: April 12,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-4835 In Re: RAY WALLACE METTETAL, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-96-34) No. 01-7779 RAY WALLACE METTETAL, JR., a/k/a Steven Ray Maupin, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-01-76-7) Submitted: February 28, 2002 Decided: April 12, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. No. 01-4835 petition denied and No. 01-7779 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ray Wallace Mettetal, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: In No. 01-4835, Ray Wallace Mettetal, Jr., has filed a motion for a writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus seeking to have this court direct the district court to terminate criminal proceedings against him on double jeopardy grounds. Because Mettetal has now been convicted and sentenced after a retrial, we dismiss the petition as moot. We do, however, grant Mettetal leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In No. 01-7779, Mettetal appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mettetal v. United States, No. CA-01-76-7 (W.D. Va. Oct. 9, 2001). 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. No. 01-4835 - PETITION DISMISSED No. 01-7779 - AFFIRMED 3
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