Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In Re: Henry Miller, 18-2322 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-2322 Visitors: 19
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2322 In re: HENRY EARL MILLER, a/k/a Stef, a/k/a Stefan, Petitioner.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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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                                    UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer