Filed: Mar. 03, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1033 In Re: THOMAS FRANKLIN CROSS, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:10-hc-02250-D) Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: March 3, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Franklin Cross, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Franklin Cross, Jr., petitions for a w
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1033 In Re: THOMAS FRANKLIN CROSS, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:10-hc-02250-D) Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: March 3, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Franklin Cross, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Franklin Cross, Jr., petitions for a wr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1033
In Re: THOMAS FRANKLIN CROSS, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:10-hc-02250-D)
Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: March 3, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Franklin Cross, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Franklin Cross, Jr., petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting
on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (2006) petition. 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
