Filed: Oct. 08, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6935 In Re: TONY ALLEN WALKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-690) Submitted: September 27, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Allen Walker, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tony Allen Walker petitions this court for a wr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6935 In Re: TONY ALLEN WALKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-690) Submitted: September 27, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Allen Walker, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tony Allen Walker petitions this court for a wri..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6935 In Re: TONY ALLEN WALKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-690) Submitted: September 27, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Allen Walker, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tony Allen Walker petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to rule on his habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), which Walker filed in September 1995. The district court docket sheet reveals that on September 25, 2002, the district court entered a final order denying relief on Walker’s § 2254 petition. Accordingly, Walker has received the relief he seeks in his mandamus petition. Although we grant Walker leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we dismiss 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
