Filed: Feb. 26, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-586 In Re: HAROLD DEAN RIVERS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (No. CR-77-8) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Dean Rivers, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Harold Dean
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-586 In Re: HAROLD DEAN RIVERS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (No. CR-77-8) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Dean Rivers, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Harold Dean ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-586 In Re: HAROLD DEAN RIVERS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (No. CR-77-8) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Dean Rivers, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Harold Dean Rivers has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to provide him with a copy of a court reporter's handwritten notes of his eighteen-year-old trial. This issue has already been denied as the subject of a mo- tion in a prior appeal before this court. United States v. Rivers, No. 96-6609 (4th Cir. Nov. 18, 1995) (unpublished). Accordingly, because this issue has already been decided, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
