United States v. Tate

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Tate

55 F. App'x 168

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Tate. Read the opinion of the Court — 7 F. App'x 293 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 27, 2003·No. 02-7674·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Herman Lee Tate appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Tate, No. CR-98-125-9-V (W.D.N.C. filed Sept. 25, 2002; entered Oct. 2, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the *169 facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Herman Lee Tate appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Tate, No. CR-98-125-9-V (W.D.N.C. filed Sept. 25, 2002; entered Oct. 2, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the *169 facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

United States v. Tate, 55 F. App'x 168 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

55 F. App'x 168 (United States v. Tate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.