Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In Re Paul Exzure Cofield, 92-8027 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Number: 92-8027 Visitors: 4
Filed: Sep. 30, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 978 F.2d 744 298 U.S.App.D.C. 247 NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant. In re Paul Exzure COFIELD, Petitioner. No. 92-8027. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Sept. 30, 1992. Before HARRY T. EDWARDS, KAREN LeCRAFT
More

978 F.2d 744

298 U.S.App.D.C. 247

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
In re Paul Exzure COFIELD, Petitioner.

No. 92-8027.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Sept. 30, 1992.

Before HARRY T. EDWARDS, KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

1

Upon consideration of the application to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of mandamus, it is

2

ORDERED that the application be granted. The Clerk is directed to enter the petition for writ of mandamus on the court's general docket. It is

3

FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus be denied. Petitioner has failed to present any reasons for the issuance of this extraordinary writ.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer