In Re: Miller v., 02-7743 (2003)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 02-7743
Visitors: 44
Filed: May 21, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7743 In Re: GEORGE MILLER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-692-5) Submitted: May 13, 2003 Decided: May 21, 2003 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Miller, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: George Miller petitions for a writ of mandamus alleging tha
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7743 In Re: GEORGE MILLER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-692-5) Submitted: May 13, 2003 Decided: May 21, 2003 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Miller, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: George Miller petitions for a writ of mandamus alleging that..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7743 In Re: GEORGE MILLER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-692-5) Submitted: May 13, 2003 Decided: May 21, 2003 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Miller, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: George Miller petitions for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. After Miller filed the instant mandamus petition, the district court entered an order denying relief on Miller’s habeas petition. Accordingly, we deny Miller’s mandamus petition as moot but grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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
