In Re: Tillman v., 99-6705 (1999)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 99-6705
Visitors: 148
Filed: Aug. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6705 In Re: ARTHUR LEE TILLMAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-81-3-MU) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Tillman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Arthur Lee Ti
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6705 In Re: ARTHUR LEE TILLMAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-81-3-MU) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Tillman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Arthur Lee Til..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6705 In Re: ARTHUR LEE TILLMAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-81-3-MU) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Tillman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Arthur Lee Tillman petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court for the Western District of North Carolina to rule on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. The dis- trict court denied his § 2241 petition on June 21, 1999. Accord- ingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. Petitioner’s motion to consol- idate is denied. We 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. PETITION DENIED 2
Source: CourtListener
