Filed: Feb. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2333 In Re: SAMUEL TIJUAN JONES, a/k/a Tito, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (6:06-cr-00398-HFF-1) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Tijuan Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samuel Tijuan Jones petitions for a wr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2333 In Re: SAMUEL TIJUAN JONES, a/k/a Tito, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (6:06-cr-00398-HFF-1) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Tijuan Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samuel Tijuan Jones petitions for a wri..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2333 In Re: SAMUEL TIJUAN JONES, a/k/a Tito, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (6:06-cr-00398-HFF-1) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Tijuan Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samuel Tijuan Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Motion to Dismiss Count Five of the Indictment. 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 mandamus petition. 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
