Filed: Mar. 29, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1997 In Re: JAMES K. BURKS, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:93-cr-00460-CMH-1) Submitted: March 23, 2012 Decided: March 29, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James K. Burks, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James K. Burks, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1997 In Re: JAMES K. BURKS, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:93-cr-00460-CMH-1) Submitted: March 23, 2012 Decided: March 29, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James K. Burks, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James K. Burks, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, al..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1997
In Re: JAMES K. BURKS, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:93-cr-00460-CMH-1)
Submitted: March 23, 2012 Decided: March 29, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James K. Burks, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James K. Burks, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. He seeks an order from this
court directing the district court to act. Our review of the
district court’s docket reveals that the district court entered
an order on January 27, 2012, denying Burks’ motion.
Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided
Burks’ case, 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