Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Copeland V., 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The court denied Garry Copeland's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to bring an Apprendi claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court determined that mandamus relief was not appropriate because Copeland had another available remedy, which was to file a § 2241 petition in the district court rather than seeking mandamus relief. While the court granted Copeland's request to proceed in forma pauperis, it denied the petition for mandamus relief and dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-03-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-7444

    Original Title

    In Re: Copeland v., 4th Cir. (2001)

    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 court denied Garry Copeland's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to bring an Apprendi claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court determined that mandamus relief was not appropriate because Copeland had another available remedy, which was to file a § 2241 petition in the district court rather than seeking mandamus relief. While the court granted Copeland's request to proceed in forma pauperis, it denied the petition for mandamus relief and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views2 pages

    In Re: Copeland V., 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court denied Garry Copeland's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to bring an Apprendi claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court determined that mandamus relief was not appropriate because Copeland had another available remedy, which was to file a § 2241 petition in the district court rather than seeking mandamus relief. While the court granted Copeland's request to proceed in forma pauperis, it denied the petition for mandamus relief and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 00-7444

    In Re: GARRY COPELAND,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

    Submitted:

    January 31, 2001

    (CR-90-108-N)

    Decided:

    March 8, 2001

    Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Garry Copeland, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Garry Copeland has filed this mandamus petition apparently
    seeking to bring an Apprendi* claim under 28 U.S.C. 2241 (1994).
    Where there is another available remedy, mandamus relief is not
    appropriate.

    In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

    In

    this case, Copeland has another available remedy, namely to file a


    28 U.S.C. 2241 petition in the district court.

    Therefore, al-

    though we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny mandamus relief. 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

    Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).


    2

    You might also like