Filed: Aug. 29, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6169 In Re: DANNY EUGENE MESHAW, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:04-cr-00061-F-3;7:06-cv-00006) Submitted: August 22, 2007 Decided: August 29, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Eugene Meshaw, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Danny Eugene Meshaw petitions for a writ of
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6169 In Re: DANNY EUGENE MESHAW, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:04-cr-00061-F-3;7:06-cv-00006) Submitted: August 22, 2007 Decided: August 29, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Eugene Meshaw, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Danny Eugene Meshaw petitions for a writ of m..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6169 In Re: DANNY EUGENE MESHAW, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:04-cr-00061-F-3;7:06-cv-00006) Submitted: August 22, 2007 Decided: August 29, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Eugene Meshaw, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Danny Eugene Meshaw petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed in acting on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Meshaw seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the record indicates that the district court denied Meshaw’s § 2255 motion by order dated June 19, 2007. See Meshaw v. United States, Nos. 7:04-cr-00061-F-3; 7:06-cv-00006-F (E.D.N.C. June 18, 2007). Accordingly, because the district court has acted in Meshaw’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 -
