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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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