In Re: Lamar Garvin, 17-1752 (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 17-1752
Visitors: 26
Filed: Nov. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1752 In re: LAMAR KEITH GARVIN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (No. 3:13-cr-00141-JAG-1) Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamar Keith Garvin, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lamar Keith Garvin petit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1752 In re: LAMAR KEITH GARVIN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (No. 3:13-cr-00141-JAG-1) Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lamar Keith Garvin, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lamar Keith Garvin petiti..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1752
In re: LAMAR KEITH GARVIN,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(No. 3:13-cr-00141-JAG-1)
Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lamar Keith Garvin, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lamar Keith Garvin petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district
court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an
order from this court directing the district court to act. We conclude that the present
record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Garvin’s petition for a writ of mandamus.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
2
Source: CourtListener