Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Mills V., 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The petitioner, Michael Edward Mills, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). However, the court of appeals denied the petition as moot, as the docket sheet revealed that on August 26, 2008, the district court had granted Mills' 3582(c)(2) motion as to two counts of conviction. As the district court had recently decided the case, oral arguments were not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-09-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-1840

    Original Title

    In Re: Mills v., 4th Cir. (2008)

    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 petitioner, Michael Edward Mills, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). However, the court of appeals denied the petition as moot, as the docket sheet revealed that on August 26, 2008, the district court had granted Mills' 3582(c)(2) motion as to two counts of conviction. As the district court had recently decided the case, oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Mills V., 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The petitioner, Michael Edward Mills, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). However, the court of appeals denied the petition as moot, as the docket sheet revealed that on August 26, 2008, the district court had granted Mills' 3582(c)(2) motion as to two counts of conviction. As the district court had recently decided the case, oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-1840

    In Re:

    MICHAEL EDWARD MILLS,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (3:93-cr-00132-REP-4)

    Submitted:

    September 16, 2008

    Decided:

    September 18, 2008

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael Edward Mills, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Edward Mills petitions for a writ of mandamus,
    alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion
    for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2)
    (2000).

    He seeks an order from this court directing the district

    court to act.

    Our review of the docket sheet reveals that, by

    order entered on August 26, 2008, the district court granted Mills
    3582(c)(2) motion as to two counts of conviction.

    Accordingly,

    because the district court has recently decided Mills 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

    You might also like