In Re: Robinson v., 04-4613 (2004)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 04-4613
Visitors: 67
Filed: Oct. 22, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4613 In Re: GARY ROBINSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-02-253-WMN) Submitted: September 8, 2004 Decided: October 22, 2004 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gary Robinson peti
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4613 In Re: GARY ROBINSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-02-253-WMN) Submitted: September 8, 2004 Decided: October 22, 2004 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gary Robinson petit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4613 In Re: GARY ROBINSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-02-253-WMN) Submitted: September 8, 2004 Decided: October 22, 2004 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gary Robinson petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his post-judgment of conviction motions. 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 Robinson leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for writ of mandamus. 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
