Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Gerard Valmore Brown, 82 F.3d 409, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views1 page
    The petitioner filed a writ of mandamus to direct the district court to act on his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court found that the district court last acted on the § 2255 motion within six months, so there was no unreasonable delay. Therefore, the appellate court denied the petition for writ of mandamus while granting the petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were clear based on the materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-04-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 82 F.3d 409 Docket: 95-8092

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioner filed a writ of mandamus to direct the district court to act on his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court found that the district court last acted on the § 2255 motion within six months, so there was no unreasonable delay. Therefore, the appellate court denied the petition for writ of mandamus while granting the petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were clear based on the materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views1 page

    In Re: Gerard Valmore Brown, 82 F.3d 409, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The petitioner filed a writ of mandamus to direct the district court to act on his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court found that the district court last acted on the § 2255 motion within six months, so there was no unreasonable delay. Therefore, the appellate court denied the petition for writ of mandamus while granting the petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal issues were clear based on the materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    82 F.

    3d 409

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation


    of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    In Re: Gerard Valmore BROWN, Petitioner.
    No. 95-8092.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Nov. 28, 1995.
    Decided April 19, 1996.

    PETITION DENIED.
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-281)
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerard Valmore
    Brown, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this court
    direct the district court to act on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255
    (1988). The district court has last acted in the 2255 proceeding on September
    8, 1995. Because the district court has acted within six months of the filing of
    the petition, we find no unreasonable delay. Therefore, while we grant leave to
    proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition. We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    PETITION DENIED

    You might also like