Filed: May 31, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2332 In re: ELEAZAR TEODORO-BASILIO, a/k/a Chelelo, a/k/a J. Eleazar Teodoro-Basilio, a/k/a Huichol, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:02-cr-00094-GCM-1) Submitted: May 13, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eleazar Teodoro-Basilio, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2332 In re: ELEAZAR TEODORO-BASILIO, a/k/a Chelelo, a/k/a J. Eleazar Teodoro-Basilio, a/k/a Huichol, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:02-cr-00094-GCM-1) Submitted: May 13, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eleazar Teodoro-Basilio, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2332 In re: ELEAZAR TEODORO-BASILIO, a/k/a Chelelo, a/k/a J. Eleazar Teodoro-Basilio, a/k/a Huichol, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:02-cr-00094-GCM-1) Submitted: May 13, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eleazar Teodoro-Basilio, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eleazar Teodoro-Basilio petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Petition for Writ of Error Audita Querela. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. 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
