Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In re: McKinney v., 00-6733 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6733 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jul. 12, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6733 In re: AARON MCKINNEY, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-557-1) Submitted: June 27, 2000 Decided: July 12, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron McKinney, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Aaron McKinney, Sr., filed a petition for
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6733 In re: AARON MCKINNEY, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-557-1) Submitted: June 27, 2000 Decided: July 12, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron McKinney, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Aaron McKinney, Sr., filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay in the district court in resolving an issue we remanded to the district court. The district court has since answered the question. See McKinney v. Attorney Gen. of N.C., No. CA-98-557-1 (M.D.N.C. June 5, 2000). Accordingly, we deny the man- damus petition as moot. 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

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer