In Re: Kennedy v., 99-1090 (1999)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 99-1090
Visitors: 8
Filed: May 05, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1090 In Re: MICHAEL KENNEDY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-947-BR) Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 5, 1999 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Kennedy, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Kennedy petitions this court for a writ o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1090 In Re: MICHAEL KENNEDY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-947-BR) Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 5, 1999 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Kennedy, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Kennedy petitions this court for a writ of..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1090 In Re: MICHAEL KENNEDY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-947-BR) Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 5, 1999 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Kennedy, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael Kennedy petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to rule on his Motion to Expedite Proceedings or in the Alternative for Bond Pending Adjudication of Habeas Petition. The district court denied this motion on February 5, 1999. We accordingly deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the mandamus petition as moot. We deny the motion to consolidate and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Source: CourtListener
