In Re: Bailey v., 05-7436 (2005)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 05-7436
Visitors: 14
Filed: Oct. 31, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7436 In Re: JAMES CLAUDE BAILEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Extraordinary Writ under the All Writs Act (CA-00-21-RAJ) Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Claude Bailey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c)
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7436 In Re: JAMES CLAUDE BAILEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Extraordinary Writ under the All Writs Act (CA-00-21-RAJ) Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Claude Bailey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c)...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7436 In Re: JAMES CLAUDE BAILEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Extraordinary Writ under the All Writs Act (CA-00-21-RAJ) Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Claude Bailey, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James Claude Bailey petitions for an extraordinary writ pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2000). We find that relief is not warranted, and we therefore deny the petition. We grant Bailey leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny his “motion for expedited response” as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED - 2 -
Source: CourtListener
