Filed: Jun. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8109 In Re: CYRUS JONATHAN GEORGE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-78) Submitted: June 4, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cyrus Jonathan George, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On January 8, 2002, Cyrus George filed this p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8109 In Re: CYRUS JONATHAN GEORGE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-78) Submitted: June 4, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cyrus Jonathan George, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On January 8, 2002, Cyrus George filed this pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8109 In Re: CYRUS JONATHAN GEORGE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-78) Submitted: June 4, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cyrus Jonathan George, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On January 8, 2002, Cyrus George filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to act on his Motion to Correct Errors in Judgment filed on February 11, 1999. The district court entered an order granting in part and denying in part George’s motion on April 30, 2002. Because the district court has disposed of George’s motion, George’s mandamus petition is moot. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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
