Filed: Jan. 09, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-740 In Re: CRAIG BURRIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-96-1547-4-2, CR-94-430) Submitted: December 23, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig Burris, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Craig Burris brought this mandamus peti
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-740 In Re: CRAIG BURRIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-96-1547-4-2, CR-94-430) Submitted: December 23, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig Burris, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Craig Burris brought this mandamus petit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-740 In Re: CRAIG BURRIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-96-1547-4-2, CR-94-430) Submitted: December 23, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig Burris, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Craig Burris brought this mandamus petition seeking an order directing the district court to render a decision on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). Sub- sequently, the district court rendered a decision denying Burris's § 2255 motion. Because his mandamus petition is now moot, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the petition. We dis- pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid in the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
