In re: Sean Mescall, 17-2285 (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 17-2285
Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2285 In re: SEAN F. MESCALL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:12-cr-00215-RJC-1; 3:17-cv-00202-RJC) Submitted: November 27, 2017 Decided: December 18, 2017 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean F. Mescall, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sean Mescall pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2285 In re: SEAN F. MESCALL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:12-cr-00215-RJC-1; 3:17-cv-00202-RJC) Submitted: November 27, 2017 Decided: December 18, 2017 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean F. Mescall, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sean Mescall pet..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2285
In re: SEAN F. MESCALL,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:12-cr-00215-RJC-1; 3:17-cv-00202-RJC)
Submitted: November 27, 2017 Decided: December 18, 2017
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sean F. Mescall, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sean Mescall petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has
unduly delayed ordering the United States to respond to his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (2012)
motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We conclude
that the present record does not disclose undue delay in the district court. Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2
Source: CourtListener