Filed: Dec. 16, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7056 In Re: KEDRIC LAMAR WHITMORE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-4407-3-24BC) Submitted: November 5, 2002 Decided: December 16, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kedric Lamar Whitmore, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kedric Lamar Whitmore filed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7056 In Re: KEDRIC LAMAR WHITMORE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-4407-3-24BC) Submitted: November 5, 2002 Decided: December 16, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kedric Lamar Whitmore, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kedric Lamar Whitmore filed ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7056 In Re: KEDRIC LAMAR WHITMORE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-4407-3-24BC) Submitted: November 5, 2002 Decided: December 16, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kedric Lamar Whitmore, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kedric Lamar Whitmore filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay in the district court. Whitmore filed a habeas corpus petition in the district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), on November 29, 2001. The district court ruled on the § 2254 petition on July 31, 2002, after Whitmore filed the mandamus petition. Accordingly, the mandamus petition is now moot. We therefore deny the petition for mandamus relief. We grant Whitmore’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 2
