Filed: Feb. 12, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7579 In Re: MARVIN R. ANDERSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-99-239) Submitted: January 28, 2004 Decided: February 12, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin R. Anderson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marvin R. Anderson petitions for a writ o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7579 In Re: MARVIN R. ANDERSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-99-239) Submitted: January 28, 2004 Decided: February 12, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin R. Anderson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marvin R. Anderson petitions for a writ of..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7579 In Re: MARVIN R. ANDERSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-99-239) Submitted: January 28, 2004 Decided: February 12, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin R. Anderson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marvin R. Anderson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court recently denied his motion. See United States v. Anderson, No. CR-99-239 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 2, 2003). Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Anderson’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 -
