Filed: Aug. 05, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6137 In Re: GARY LEWIS DAVIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-85-C) Submitted: June 27, 2005 Decided: August 5, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Lewis Davis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gary Lewis Davis petitions for writ of mandamus, all
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6137 In Re: GARY LEWIS DAVIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-85-C) Submitted: June 27, 2005 Decided: August 5, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Lewis Davis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gary Lewis Davis petitions for writ of mandamus, alle..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6137 In Re: GARY LEWIS DAVIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-85-C) Submitted: June 27, 2005 Decided: August 5, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Lewis Davis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gary Lewis Davis petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for modification of sentence. 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 Davis’s motion on June 9, 2005. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Davis’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 -
