In re: Mays v., 03-6026 (2003)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 03-6026
Visitors: 71
Filed: Mar. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6026 In Re: PHILLIP MARQUETTE MAYS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-1841-8) Submitted: March 7, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Marquette Mays, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Phillip Marquette Mays petitions
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6026 In Re: PHILLIP MARQUETTE MAYS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-1841-8) Submitted: March 7, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Marquette Mays, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Phillip Marquette Mays petitions ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6026 In Re: PHILLIP MARQUETTE MAYS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-1841-8) Submitted: March 7, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Marquette Mays, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Phillip Marquette Mays petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (2000) 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, 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
