Filed: Jun. 18, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6314 In Re: DONNIE ROBIN SIMPSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-192-MU) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donnie Robin Simpson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On February 15, 2002, Donnie Robin Simp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6314 In Re: DONNIE ROBIN SIMPSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-192-MU) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donnie Robin Simpson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On February 15, 2002, Donnie Robin Simps..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6314 In Re: DONNIE ROBIN SIMPSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-192-MU) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donnie Robin Simpson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On February 15, 2002, Donnie Robin Simpson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking this court to direct the district court to enter a ruling in his motion for downward departure filed on May 2, 2001. On May 22, 2001, the district court ordered the Government to respond to the motion. The Government responded on August 15, 2001. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the petition without prejudice to Simpson’s right to refile if the district court does not act expeditiously. We also deny Simpson’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and 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 2
