Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Alphonso Morrison v., 09-1133 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1133 Visitors: 19
Filed: Nov. 06, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1133 In Re: ALPHONSO RAVON MORRISON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:99-cr-00070-RLV; 5:05-cv-00285-RLV) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: November 6, 2009 Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alphonso Ravon Morrison, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alphon
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1133 In Re: ALPHONSO RAVON MORRISON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:99-cr-00070-RLV; 5:05-cv-00285-RLV) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: November 6, 2009 Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alphonso Ravon Morrison, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alphonso Ravon Morrison petitions for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) and on his motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion. 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 both the motion to modify Morrison’s sentence and the motion to alter or amend judgment. See United States v. Morrison, No. 5:99-cr-00070-RLV (W.D.N.C. June 8, 2009); Morrison v. United States, No. 5:05-cv-00285-RLV (W.D.N.C. June 8, 2009). Accordingly, 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer