Filed: Apr. 22, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6086 In Re: JOHN DOUGLAS JACKSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-97-246-L; CA-03-2502-L) Submitted: April 6, 2005 Decided: April 22, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Douglas Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Douglas Jackson pet
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6086 In Re: JOHN DOUGLAS JACKSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-97-246-L; CA-03-2502-L) Submitted: April 6, 2005 Decided: April 22, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Douglas Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Douglas Jackson peti..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6086 In Re: JOHN DOUGLAS JACKSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-97-246-L; CA-03-2502-L) Submitted: April 6, 2005 Decided: April 22, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Douglas Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Douglas Jackson petitions for 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. Because the district court has acted in the case as recently as February 16, 2005, 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 -
