Filed: Jan. 07, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7178 In Re: PETE SMITH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-117) Submitted: December 13, 2004 Decided: January 7, 2005 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 writ of mandamus, alleging the dist
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7178 In Re: PETE SMITH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-117) Submitted: December 13, 2004 Decided: January 7, 2005 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 writ of mandamus, alleging the distr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7178 In Re: PETE SMITH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-117) Submitted: December 13, 2004 Decided: January 7, 2005 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) 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 Smith’s motion on November 26, 2004. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Smith’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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 -
