In re: Zehrbach v., 05-7827 (2006)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 05-7827
Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 09, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7827 In Re: DARUS ZEHRBACH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-05-79; CR-00-33) Submitted: January 27, 2006 Decided: February 9, 2006 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darus Zehrbach, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Darus Zehrbach has filed a motion for a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7827 In Re: DARUS ZEHRBACH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-05-79; CR-00-33) Submitted: January 27, 2006 Decided: February 9, 2006 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darus Zehrbach, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Darus Zehrbach has filed a motion for an..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7827 In Re: DARUS ZEHRBACH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-05-79; CR-00-33) Submitted: January 27, 2006 Decided: February 9, 2006 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darus Zehrbach, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Darus Zehrbach has filed a motion for an order of mandamus on an expedited consideration basis, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (2000). 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 motion to expedite and 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
