Filed: Feb. 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7175 In Re: ROBERT WILLIAM PUCKETT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-98-12) Submitted: November 24, 2003 Decided: February 4, 2004 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert William Puckett, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert W. Puckett petitions this court
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7175 In Re: ROBERT WILLIAM PUCKETT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-98-12) Submitted: November 24, 2003 Decided: February 4, 2004 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert William Puckett, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert W. Puckett petitions this court ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7175 In Re: ROBERT WILLIAM PUCKETT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-98-12) Submitted: November 24, 2003 Decided: February 4, 2004 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert William Puckett, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert W. Puckett petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to act on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Our review of the district court docket sheet in that action reveals that the district court entered a final order on April 22, 2003, denying relief on Puckett’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 -
