Filed: Sep. 10, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7092 In Re: DAVID HALL CRUM, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-427-5, CA-03-434-5) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Hall Crum, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7092 In Re: DAVID HALL CRUM, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-427-5, CA-03-434-5) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Hall Crum, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7092 In Re: DAVID HALL CRUM, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-427-5, CA-03-434-5) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Hall Crum, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Hall Crum petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed in taking action in two petitions for writ of habeas corpus Crum filed in May 2003. Crum seeks an order from this court directing the district court to issue show cause orders in these actions. However, because we find no unreasonable delay, we deny Crum’s request for mandamus relief. Crum’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and we 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
