Filed: Feb. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2221 In re: HENRY PAUL RICHARDSON, a/k/a Packer, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:06-cr-00106-HEH-1) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Paul Richardson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry Paul
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2221 In re: HENRY PAUL RICHARDSON, a/k/a Packer, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:06-cr-00106-HEH-1) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Paul Richardson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry Paul ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2221 In re: HENRY PAUL RICHARDSON, a/k/a Packer, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:06-cr-00106-HEH-1) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Paul Richardson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry Paul Richardson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 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
