Filed: Jul. 11, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6168 In Re: ROBERT LEE HOOD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-3) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: July 11, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Hood, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Hood petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging th
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6168 In Re: ROBERT LEE HOOD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-3) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: July 11, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Hood, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Hood petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6168 In Re: ROBERT LEE HOOD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-3) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: July 11, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Hood, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Hood petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2002) petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court dismissed his petition on March 10, 2003. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Hood’s case, we 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
