Filed: May 10, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7890 In Re: JOHNNY BERNARD MILLER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-92-101-MU) Submitted: April 7, 2004 Decided: May 10, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Bernard Miller, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Johnny Bernard Miller petitions this
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7890 In Re: JOHNNY BERNARD MILLER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-92-101-MU) Submitted: April 7, 2004 Decided: May 10, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Bernard Miller, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Johnny Bernard Miller petitions this ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7890 In Re: JOHNNY BERNARD MILLER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-92-101-MU) Submitted: April 7, 2004 Decided: May 10, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Bernard Miller, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Johnny Bernard Miller petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to act upon his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The district court filed its order denying Miller’s Rule 60(b) motion on January 7, 2004, and entered the order on the docket on January 30, 2004. Accordingly, although we grant Miller’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We also grant the Government’s motions for leave to file a supplemental appendix and to seal Exhibit 3 contained therein. 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 -
