Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In Re: Daniel Weymouth, 11-2403 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-2403 Visitors: 36
Filed: Apr. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2403 In re: DANIEL ANTHONY WEYMOUTH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:03-cr-00082-JBF-FBS-1) Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Anthony Weymouth, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Anthony Weymouth petitions for a writ
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2403 In re: DANIEL ANTHONY WEYMOUTH, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:03-cr-00082-JBF-FBS-1) Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Anthony Weymouth, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Anthony Weymouth petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his petition for transfer of supervised release. Weymouth filed a petition for transfer of his supervised release on July 5, 2011. The next day, the district court filed an order informing Weymouth that his petition was deficient and that he had thirty days to cure the deficiency or his petition would be struck from the record. Weymouth filed another petition on July 20, 2011, but there has been no further action by the district court. Weymouth seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer