Filed: May 11, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6096 In Re: SAMUEL DEWITT MCCOTTER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-27) Submitted: April 25, 2005 Decided: May 11, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel DeWitt McCotter, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Samuel DeWitt McCotter filed a petition fo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6096 In Re: SAMUEL DEWITT MCCOTTER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-27) Submitted: April 25, 2005 Decided: May 11, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel DeWitt McCotter, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Samuel DeWitt McCotter filed a petition for..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6096 In Re: SAMUEL DEWITT MCCOTTER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-27) Submitted: April 25, 2005 Decided: May 11, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel DeWitt McCotter, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Samuel DeWitt McCotter filed a petition for writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. The district court dismissed the petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis on July 28, 2003. Accordingly, the mandamus petition is now moot. Thus, although we grant McCotter’s application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for mandamus relief. 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 -
