Filed: Oct. 21, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7365 In Re: KESLET ETIENNE, a/k/a Jose Phillipe, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-482-BO-5) Submitted: October 9, 2003 Decided: October 21, 2003 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keslet Etienne, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Keslet Etienne petitions for
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7365 In Re: KESLET ETIENNE, a/k/a Jose Phillipe, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-482-BO-5) Submitted: October 9, 2003 Decided: October 21, 2003 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keslet Etienne, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Keslet Etienne petitions for ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7365 In Re: KESLET ETIENNE, a/k/a Jose Phillipe, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-482-BO-5) Submitted: October 9, 2003 Decided: October 21, 2003 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keslet Etienne, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Keslet Etienne petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) motion filed in July 2002. 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 Etienne’s motion without prejudice on September 5, 2003. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Etienne’s mandamus petition as moot because the district court has recently decided Etienne’s case. 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
