Filed: Dec. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-633 In Re: AARON DARRYL THOMAS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-69-2) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Darryl Thomas, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Aaron Darryl Tho
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-633 In Re: AARON DARRYL THOMAS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-69-2) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Darryl Thomas, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Aaron Darryl Thom..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-633
In Re: AARON DARRYL THOMAS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-69-2)
Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996
Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron Darryl Thomas, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Darryl Thomas, a federal prisoner, petitions for a writ
of mandamus. He asks that we direct the district court to rule on
his motion for disclosure of a signed grand jury form. Because the
district court has denied the motion, we deny the petition for a
writ of mandamus as moot. To the extent that Thomas wishes, through
the mandamus petition, to appeal the district court's order, we
note that mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. In re United
Steelworkers,
595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly set forth in the material before us, and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2