Filed: May 02, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6046 In Re: ANTHONY LEE THAMES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-00-122) Submitted: March 21, 2003 Decided: May 2, 2003 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Lee Thames, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Lee Thames p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6046 In Re: ANTHONY LEE THAMES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-00-122) Submitted: March 21, 2003 Decided: May 2, 2003 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Lee Thames, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Lee Thames pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6046 In Re: ANTHONY LEE THAMES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-00-122) Submitted: March 21, 2003 Decided: May 2, 2003 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Lee Thames, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Lee Thames petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. As the district court recently took significant action in the case by issuing an order to show cause on March 17, 2003, and Thames filed his response to the motion on April 9, 2003, we deny Thames’ petition as moot. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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
