Filed: Apr. 19, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6188 In Re: PETE SMITH, a/k/a Pete Noble Muhammad, a/k/a Jose, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-117) Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 19, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pete Smith, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Pete Smith petitions for
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6188 In Re: PETE SMITH, a/k/a Pete Noble Muhammad, a/k/a Jose, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-117) Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 19, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pete Smith, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Pete Smith petitions for a..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6188 In Re: PETE SMITH, a/k/a Pete Noble Muhammad, a/k/a Jose, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-117) Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 19, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pete Smith, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Pete Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). He seeks an order from this Court directing the district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. We grant leave 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 -
