In Re: Morris Fahnbulleh v., 17-1323 (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 17-1323
Visitors: 115
Filed: Jul. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1323 In Re: MORRIS B. FAHNBULLEH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:16-hc-02227-F) Submitted: June 28, 2017 Decided: July 11, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Morris B. Fahnbulleh, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Morris B. Fahnbulleh petitions for a writ o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1323 In Re: MORRIS B. FAHNBULLEH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:16-hc-02227-F) Submitted: June 28, 2017 Decided: July 11, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Morris B. Fahnbulleh, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Morris B. Fahnbulleh petitions for a writ of..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1323
In Re: MORRIS B. FAHNBULLEH,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:16-hc-02227-F)
Submitted: June 28, 2017 Decided: July 11, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Morris B. Fahnbulleh, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Morris B. Fahnbulleh petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging 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 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
