Filed: Apr. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1190 In re: JAMEL LAW, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:10-cr-00477-CMH-2) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 30, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamel Law, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel J. Olinghouse, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are n
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1190 In re: JAMEL LAW, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:10-cr-00477-CMH-2) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 30, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamel Law, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel J. Olinghouse, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are no..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1190 In re: JAMEL LAW, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:10-cr-00477-CMH-2) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 30, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamel Law, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel J. Olinghouse, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jamel Law petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his motions to correct clear error and for consideration. 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
