Filed: Sep. 14, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6939 In Re: DWAINE FRANCIS TEEL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-132-4-F) Submitted: September 6, 2001 Decided: September 14, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwaine Francis Teel, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On June 7, 2001, Dwaine Franci
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6939 In Re: DWAINE FRANCIS TEEL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-132-4-F) Submitted: September 6, 2001 Decided: September 14, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwaine Francis Teel, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On June 7, 2001, Dwaine Francis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6939 In Re: DWAINE FRANCIS TEEL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-132-4-F) Submitted: September 6, 2001 Decided: September 14, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwaine Francis Teel, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On June 7, 2001, Dwaine Francis Teel filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to act on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) filed on September 4, 1998. The district court entered an order granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment on July 17, 2001. Because the district court has disposed of Teel’s motion and closed the case on its docket, Teel’s motion is moot. Accord- ingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
