Filed: Apr. 27, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1119 In Re: WILLIAM HENRY COLEMAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:96-cr-00010-TWB-1) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Henry Coleman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Henry Coleman petitions for a writ of man
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1119 In Re: WILLIAM HENRY COLEMAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:96-cr-00010-TWB-1) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Henry Coleman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Henry Coleman petitions for a writ of mand..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1119
In Re: WILLIAM HENRY COLEMAN,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:96-cr-00010-TWB-1)
Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Henry Coleman, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Henry Coleman petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging the district court has refused to review a
motion that he filed pursuant to Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v.
Hartford-Empire Co.,
322 U.S. 238 (1944). He seeks an order
from this court directing the district court to review his
motion. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the
district court considered the motion and dismissed it as
unsubstantiated on January 7, 2009. Accordingly, because the
district court has recently acted on Coleman’s motion, we deny
the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. 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