Filed: Dec. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-610 In Re: OTTO WITHERSPOON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-91-288-2) 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Otto Witherspoon, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Otto Witherspoon brou
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-610 In Re: OTTO WITHERSPOON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-91-288-2) 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Otto Witherspoon, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Otto Witherspoon broug..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-610 In Re: OTTO WITHERSPOON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-91-288-2) 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Otto Witherspoon, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Otto Witherspoon brought this petition for mandamus relief seeking an order compelling the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina to rule on his petition under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(c)(ii) for disclosure of the proceedings of the grand jury. In the alternative, Witherspoon seeks a writ of prohi- bition preventing his further prosecution. Because the district court docket sheet reflects that Witherspoon's petition was granted on August 6, 1996, we conclude that Witherspoon has already re- ceived the relief he seeks. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition. 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 deci- sional process. PETITION DENIED 2
