Filed: Jun. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4202 In Re: RAYFORD KNIGHT, a/k/a Cherokee, a/k/a Chief, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:93-cr-00022-BEL) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 27, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rayford Knight, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rayford Knight petitions for a writ of
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4202 In Re: RAYFORD KNIGHT, a/k/a Cherokee, a/k/a Chief, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:93-cr-00022-BEL) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 27, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rayford Knight, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rayford Knight petitions for a writ of m..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4202 In Re: RAYFORD KNIGHT, a/k/a Cherokee, a/k/a Chief, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:93-cr-00022-BEL) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 27, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rayford Knight, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rayford Knight petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for return of property. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court has denied the motion. Accordingly, because the district court has ruled on Knightâs motion, 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 -
