In re: Okoro v., 96-632 (1997)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 96-632
Visitors: 6
Filed: Apr. 02, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-632 In Re: ABEL UKA OKORO, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-162-A) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 2, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abel Uka Okoro, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Abel Uka Okoro brought this mandamus petition seeki
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-632 In Re: ABEL UKA OKORO, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-162-A) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 2, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abel Uka Okoro, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Abel Uka Okoro brought this mandamus petition seekin..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-632 In Re: ABEL UKA OKORO, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-162-A) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 2, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abel Uka Okoro, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Abel Uka Okoro brought this mandamus petition seeking an order directing the district court to render a decision on his Motion for the Return of Seized Money and Property. Subsequently, the dis- trict court entered an order denying Okoro's motion. Because his mandamus petition is now moot, we deny the petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
Source: CourtListener
