In Re: Norman Kerr v., 15-2497 (2016)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 15-2497
Visitors: 83
Filed: Feb. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2497 In re: NORMAN ALAN KERR, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:09-cr-00290-NCT-1; 1:14-cv-01094-NCT-JEP) Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman Alan Kerr, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Norman A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2497 In re: NORMAN ALAN KERR, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:09-cr-00290-NCT-1; 1:14-cv-01094-NCT-JEP) Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman Alan Kerr, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Norman Al..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2497
In re: NORMAN ALAN KERR,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:09-cr-00290-NCT-1; 1:14-cv-01094-NCT-JEP)
Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Norman Alan Kerr, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Norman Alan Kerr petitions for a writ of mandamus, claiming
that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his
28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this
court directing the district court to act. We find that the
present record does not reveal undue delay in the district
court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2
Source: CourtListener