In Re: Travis Arnold, 11-2257 (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 11-2257
Visitors: 50
Filed: Feb. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2257 In re: TRAVIS DENORRIS ARNOLD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:08-cr-00322-TDS-1) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis Denorris Arnold, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Travis Denorris Arnold petitions for a writ of
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2257 In re: TRAVIS DENORRIS ARNOLD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:08-cr-00322-TDS-1) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis Denorris Arnold, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Travis Denorris Arnold petitions for a writ of ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2257
In re: TRAVIS DENORRIS ARNOLD,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:08-cr-00322-TDS-1)
Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Travis Denorris Arnold, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Travis Denorris Arnold petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting
on his 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. He seeks an
order from this court directing the district court to act. We
find there has been no undue delay in the district court.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2
Source: CourtListener