In Re: Stewart v., 97-518 (1997)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 97-518
Visitors: 1
Filed: Jun. 27, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-518 In Re: DAVID GARFIELD STEWART, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-23-A) Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 27, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Garfield Stewart, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Garfiel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-518 In Re: DAVID GARFIELD STEWART, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-23-A) Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 27, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Garfield Stewart, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Garfield..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-518 In Re: DAVID GARFIELD STEWART, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-23-A) Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 27, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Garfield Stewart, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Garfield Stewart brought this mandamus petition seeking an order compelling the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to rule on his third motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). Because we note that 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West Supp. 1997) provides that no district court "shall be required to entertain" a successive application for the writ of habeas corpus without certification from this court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, we conclude that petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks without such a certification. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but deny the petition for 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
Source: CourtListener