Filed: Dec. 13, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7289 In Re: RAYMOND CHERISSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-97) Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 13, 2002 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Cherisson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Raymond Cherisson petitions for a writ of man
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7289 In Re: RAYMOND CHERISSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-97) Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 13, 2002 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Cherisson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Raymond Cherisson petitions for a writ of mand..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7289 In Re: RAYMOND CHERISSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-97) Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 13, 2002 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Cherisson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Raymond Cherisson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Fed. R. 60(b) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court entered an order denying Cherisson’s Rule 60(b) motion on November 5, 2002. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Cherisson’s case, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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
