Filed: Jan. 06, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7660 In Re: GERALD LEE CASHWELL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-454-PJM, CA-00-1732-PJM) Submitted: November 25, 2002 Decided: January 6, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Lee Cashwell, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gerald L. Cashwell p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7660 In Re: GERALD LEE CASHWELL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-454-PJM, CA-00-1732-PJM) Submitted: November 25, 2002 Decided: January 6, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Lee Cashwell, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gerald L. Cashwell pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7660 In Re: GERALD LEE CASHWELL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-454-PJM, CA-00-1732-PJM) Submitted: November 25, 2002 Decided: January 6, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Lee Cashwell, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gerald L. Cashwell petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for reconsideration filed August 30, 2002. 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 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
