In Re: Mustafa Muhammad v., 17-1764 (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 17-1764
Visitors: 1
Filed: Aug. 10, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1764 In Re: MUSTAFA MUHAMMAD Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:14-cr-00055-REP-DJN-1) Submitted: August 8, 2017 Decided: August 10, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mustafa Muhammad, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mustafa Muhammad petitions for a writ of
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1764 In Re: MUSTAFA MUHAMMAD Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:14-cr-00055-REP-DJN-1) Submitted: August 8, 2017 Decided: August 10, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mustafa Muhammad, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mustafa Muhammad petitions for a writ of m..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1764 In Re: MUSTAFA MUHAMMAD Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:14-cr-00055-REP-DJN-1) Submitted: August 8, 2017 Decided: August 10, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mustafa Muhammad, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mustafa Muhammad petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his motion for new trial. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does not reveal 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
Source: CourtListener
