Filed: Mar. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7009 In Re: WILLIAM FRED MCDONALD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-244, CA-97-154) Submitted: February 9, 2001 Decided: March 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Fred McDonald, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Fred McDonald pet
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7009 In Re: WILLIAM FRED MCDONALD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-244, CA-97-154) Submitted: February 9, 2001 Decided: March 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Fred McDonald, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Fred McDonald peti..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7009 In Re: WILLIAM FRED MCDONALD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-244, CA-97-154) Submitted: February 9, 2001 Decided: March 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Fred McDonald, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Fred McDonald petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to act upon his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). The district court entered a final order on January 29, 2001, denying relief on McDonald’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, although we grant McDonald leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
