Filed: Sep. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6026 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THEODORE THOMAS WAGNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:02-cr-00181-PMD-1) Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: September 24, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6026 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THEODORE THOMAS WAGNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:02-cr-00181-PMD-1) Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: September 24, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6026
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THEODORE THOMAS WAGNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:02-cr-00181-PMD-1)
Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: September 24, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore Thomas Wagner, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Rhett DeHart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Theodore Thomas Wagner appeals the district court’s
orders directing him to report to the Bureau of Prisons for a
psychiatric evaluation and denying his petitions for
reconsideration. Wagner is no longer in the custody of the
Bureau of Prisons. Therefore, we dismiss his appeal as moot.
Cf. ADAPT of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth.,
417 F.3d
390, 393 (3d Cir. 2005) (compliance with an order generally
renders appeal of the order moot if appellant has suffered no
prejudice that can be remedied on appeal). Wagner’s motion for
a transcript at Government expense, supplemental motion for a
transcript at Government expense, and motion to add new evidence
are denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2