In Re: Dylan Jeffries, 18-1700 (2018)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 18-1700
Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1700 In re: DYLAN ALLEN JEFFRIES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:15-cr-00083-MSD-LRL-1) Submitted: August 23, 2018 Decided: August 27, 2018 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dylan Allen Jeffries, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dylan Allen Jeffries pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1700 In re: DYLAN ALLEN JEFFRIES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:15-cr-00083-MSD-LRL-1) Submitted: August 23, 2018 Decided: August 27, 2018 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dylan Allen Jeffries, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dylan Allen Jeffries pet..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1700
In re: DYLAN ALLEN JEFFRIES,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:15-cr-00083-MSD-LRL-1)
Submitted: August 23, 2018 Decided: August 27, 2018
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dylan Allen Jeffries, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dylan Allen Jeffries petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district
court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (2012) motion. 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 grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and 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
