In Re: Reynolds v., 03-6990 (2003)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 03-6990
Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 10, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6990 In Re: RANDY REYNOLDS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-98-8) 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy Reynolds, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Randy Reynolds petitions
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6990 In Re: RANDY REYNOLDS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-98-8) 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy Reynolds, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Randy Reynolds petitions ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6990 In Re: RANDY REYNOLDS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-98-8) 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy Reynolds, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Randy Reynolds petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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
Source: CourtListener
