In re Burns

Fourth Circuit

In re Burns

89 F. App'x 408

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 12, 2004

DocketNo. 03-7378

StatusPublished

This text of 89 F. App'x 408 (In re Burns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Burns, 89 F. App'x 408 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Burns petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to act on three pro se motions Burns filed in a criminal case. After Burns filed the mandamus petition, he received a 126-month sentence in that case, and criminal judgment was entered on the district court’s docket. To the extent that Burns claims the district court did not rule on the motions, we note that the denial of a pending motion may be implied by the entry of final judgment. See Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir.1994). The mandamus petition is therefore moot. Further, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). Accordingly, while we grant Burns’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his mandamus petition. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Michael Burns petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to act on three pro se motions Burns filed in a criminal case. After Burns filed the mandamus petition, he received a 126-month sentence in that case, and criminal judgment was entered on the district court’s docket. To the extent that Burns claims the district court did not rule on the motions, we note that the denial of a pending motion may be implied by the entry of final judgment. See Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir.1994). The mandamus petition is therefore moot. Further, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). Accordingly, while we grant Burns’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his mandamus petition. 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 F. App'x 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-burns-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack