In Re: Addison v. ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                                            Filed:   November 5, 1998
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 98-1204
    (CR-96-66)
    In Re: MICHAEL ANTONIO ADDISON,
    Petitioner.
    O R D E R
    The court amends its opinion filed May 1, 1998, as follows:
    On page 2, first full paragraph, line 4 -- the words “pled
    guilty to” are corrected to read “was convicted of.”
    On page 2, second full paragraph, line 1 -- the words “guilty
    plea” are corrected to read “convictions.”
    For the Court - By Direction
    /s/ Patricia S. Connor
    Clerk
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 98-1204
    In Re:   MICHAEL ANTONIO ADDISON,
    Petitioner.
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
    Submitted:   April 16, 1998                   Decided:   May 1, 1998
    Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael Antonio Addison, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Antonio Addison has filed a petition for a writ of
    mandamus from this court seeking an order staying the South Caro-
    lina state court from proceeding against him in a criminal case.
    Subsequent to the filing of this petition, Addison was convicted of
    the criminal charges and is now in state custody serving his sen-
    tence. Addison has now filed a motion for release, alleging that he
    is being held against his will and denied legal materials.
    Because Addison's convictions rendered his petition moot, we
    deny his mandamus petition and his motion for release. To the
    extent Addison's motion for release can be construed as another
    mandamus petition challenging the validity of his conviction, we
    deny this petition, because Addison has not shown that he has "no
    other adequate means to attain the relief he desires" or that his
    entitlement to such relief is "clear and indisputable." See Allied
    Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 
    449 U.S. 33
    , 35 (1980). We also deny
    Appellant's motion for an injunction. We dispense with oral argu-
    ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
    sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
    the decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 98-1204

Filed Date: 11/5/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014