In Re: James Jones v., 17-1289 (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 17-1289
Visitors: 22
Filed: Jun. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1289 In Re: JAMES ERIC JONES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:06-cr-01238-TLW-1; 4:16-cv-01447-TLW) Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 27, 2017 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Eric Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Eric Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1289 In Re: JAMES ERIC JONES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:06-cr-01238-TLW-1; 4:16-cv-01447-TLW) Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 27, 2017 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Eric Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Eric Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1289
In Re: JAMES ERIC JONES,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(4:06-cr-01238-TLW-1; 4:16-cv-01447-TLW)
Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 27, 2017
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Eric Jones, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Eric Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court
has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order
from this court directing the district court to act. 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 also deny Jones’ motion for bail without
prejudice. 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