Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    In Re: Randolph Austin V., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying Randolph Harris Austin's petition for a writ of mandamus. Austin had petitioned the court, alleging that the district court unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit found that the record did not reveal any undue delay by the district court and denied Austin's mandamus petition.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    In Re: Randolph Austin V., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying Randolph Harris Austin's petition for a writ of mandamus. Austin had petitioned the court, alleging that the district court unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit found that the record did not reveal any undue delay by the district court and denied Austin's mandamus petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-12-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-2042

    Original Title

    In Re: Randolph Austin v., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying Randolph Harris Austin's petition for a writ of mandamus. Austin had petitioned the court, alleging that the district court unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit found that the record did not reveal any undue delay by the district court and denied Austin's mandamus petition.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Randolph Austin V., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying Randolph Harris Austin's petition for a writ of mandamus. Austin had petitioned the court, alleging that the district court unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit found that the record did not reveal any undue delay by the district court and denied Austin's mandamus petition.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-2042

    In re: RANDOLPH HARRIS AUSTIN, a/k/a Randolph Harris, a/k/a


    Matarbus Raynard Fewell,

    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ


    3:11-cv-00040-RJC)

    Submitted:

    of

    Mandamus.

    December 17, 2013

    (3:05-cr-00213-RJC-DCK-1;

    Decided:

    December 23, 2013

    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Randolph Harris Austin, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Randolph

    Harris

    Austin

    petitions

    for

    writ

    of

    mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in


    ruling on his 28 U.S.C. 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, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

    pauperis, we 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

    You might also like