Filed: Jan. 23, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2235 In re: DARRELL L. GOSS, Petitioner, On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. (2:18-cv-02938-BHH) Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell L. Goss, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darrell L. Goss petitions this court for a writ of mandam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2235 In re: DARRELL L. GOSS, Petitioner, On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. (2:18-cv-02938-BHH) Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell L. Goss, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darrell L. Goss petitions this court for a writ of mandamu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-2235
In re: DARRELL L. GOSS,
Petitioner,
On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus.
(2:18-cv-02938-BHH)
Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell L. Goss, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell L. Goss petitions this court for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district
court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. He seeks an
order from this court directing the district court to rule on the petition. We find the present
record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we deny the
mandamus petition, the supplemental mandamus petition, and the second supplemental
mandamus petition. We grant Goss’ motion for leave to file his certificate of service, deny
Goss’ motions for expedited consideration, and dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITIONS DENIED
2