Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Robinson V., 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ricky Robinson's petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to rule on various motions regarding his criminal sentence. The court dismissed the mandamus petition as moot because the district court had already denied the motions on December 29, 1999. Unpublished opinions from the Fourth Circuit are not binding precedent and oral arguments were dispensed with because the facts and legal issues were clear based on the materials submitted.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Robinson V., 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ricky Robinson's petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to rule on various motions regarding his criminal sentence. The court dismissed the mandamus petition as moot because the district court had already denied the motions on December 29, 1999. Unpublished opinions from the Fourth Circuit are not binding precedent and oral arguments were dispensed with because the facts and legal issues were clear based on the materials submitted.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-04-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7629

    Original Title

    Robinson v., 4th Cir. (2000)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ricky Robinson's petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to rule on various motions regarding his criminal sentence. The court dismissed the mandamus petition as moot because the district court had already denied the motions on December 29, 1999. Unpublished opinions from the Fourth Circuit are not binding precedent and oral arguments were dispensed with because the facts and legal issues were clear based on the materials submitted.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    11 views2 pages

    Robinson V., 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ricky Robinson's petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to rule on various motions regarding his criminal sentence. The court dismissed the mandamus petition as moot because the district court had already denied the motions on December 29, 1999. Unpublished opinions from the Fourth Circuit are not binding precedent and oral arguments were dispensed with because the facts and legal issues were clear based on the materials submitted.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-7629

    In Re: RICKY ROBINSON,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

    Submitted:

    April 13, 2000

    (CR-95-186-F)

    Decided:

    April 19, 2000

    Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Ricky Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Ricky Robinson petitions this court for a writ of mandamus
    directing the district court to rule on various motions regarding
    his criminal sentence.

    The district court denied these motions on

    December 29, 1999. We accordingly dismiss 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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like