Filed: Dec. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2322 In re: HENRY EARL MILLER, a/k/a Stef, a/k/a Stefan, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (6:04-cr-00022-JMC-3; 6:17-cv-00805-JMC) Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 20, 2018 Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Earl Miller, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry Earl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2322 In re: HENRY EARL MILLER, a/k/a Stef, a/k/a Stefan, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (6:04-cr-00022-JMC-3; 6:17-cv-00805-JMC) Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 20, 2018 Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Earl Miller, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry Earl M..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2322
In re: HENRY EARL MILLER, a/k/a Stef, a/k/a Stefan,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (6:04-cr-00022-JMC-3; 6:17-cv-00805-JMC)
Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 20, 2018
Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Earl Miller, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henry Earl Miller petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court
has unduly delayed in ruling on his motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order
denying relief on Miller’s 28 U.S.C. § 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 also deny Miller’s motion to answer a jurisdictional
question. 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