Filed: Jul. 25, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6717 In Re: JAMES A. BRASWELL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-126) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Braswell, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James A. Braswell petitions this court for a writ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6717 In Re: JAMES A. BRASWELL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-126) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Braswell, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James A. Braswell petitions this court for a writ ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6717
In Re: JAMES A. BRASWELL,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-126)
Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Braswell, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James A. Braswell petitions this court for a writ of mandamus
ordering the district court to permit him to untimely file a motion
filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000), and compelling
the district court to reconstruct the transcript in his case.
Braswell may not use the writ as a substitute for appeal of the
district court’s order denying his motion to untimely file his
habeas petition. See In re: United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO-CLC,
595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). Moreover, he has not
met his heavy burden of demonstrating a “clear and indisputable”
right to relief. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Diaflon, Inc.,
449 U.S.
33, 35 (1980). Accordingly, we deny the petition. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the material before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2