Filed: Jun. 26, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-4343 In Re: JANEEK WIGGAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-00-5) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 26, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janeek Wiggan, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On April 23, 2002, Janeek Wiggan fi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-4343 In Re: JANEEK WIGGAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-00-5) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 26, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janeek Wiggan, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On April 23, 2002, Janeek Wiggan fil..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-4343 In Re: JANEEK WIGGAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-00-5) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 26, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janeek Wiggan, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On April 23, 2002, Janeek Wiggan filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to enter a final judgment order in his criminal case and appoint substitute counsel. The district court entered final judgment and appointed substitute counsel on April 26, 2002; Wiggan’s mandamus petition is therefore moot. Accordingly, although we grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a 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
