Filed: Mar. 31, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6100 In Re: DONALD WILLIAM ARTHUR, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-99-62, CA-01-16-3) Submitted: March 7, 2003 Decided: March 31, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald William Arthur, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donald William Arthur petitions fo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6100 In Re: DONALD WILLIAM ARTHUR, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-99-62, CA-01-16-3) Submitted: March 7, 2003 Decided: March 31, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald William Arthur, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donald William Arthur petitions for..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6100 In Re: DONALD WILLIAM ARTHUR, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-99-62, CA-01-16-3) Submitted: March 7, 2003 Decided: March 31, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald William Arthur, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donald William Arthur petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court denied Arthur’s motion on February 6, 2003. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Arthur’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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
