Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    In Re: Zehrbach V., 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Darus Zehrbach filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court denied Zehrbach's motion to expedite consideration and denied the mandamus petition, finding no undue delay by the district court. The unpublished opinion states that oral argument was not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    In Re: Zehrbach V., 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    Darus Zehrbach filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court denied Zehrbach's motion to expedite consideration and denied the mandamus petition, finding no undue delay by the district court. The unpublished opinion states that oral argument was not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-02-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7827

    Original Title

    In re: Zehrbach v., 4th Cir. (2006)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Darus Zehrbach filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court denied Zehrbach's motion to expedite consideration and denied the mandamus petition, finding no undue delay by the district court. The unpublished opinion states that oral argument was not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Zehrbach V., 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Darus Zehrbach filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellate court denied Zehrbach's motion to expedite consideration and denied the mandamus petition, finding no undue delay by the district court. The unpublished opinion states that oral argument was not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    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. 05-7827

    In Re:

    DARUS ZEHRBACH,
    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (CA-05-79; CR-00-33)

    Submitted:

    January 27, 2006

    Decided:

    February 9, 2006

    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Darus Zehrbach, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Darus

    Zehrbach

    has

    filed

    motion

    for

    an

    order

    of

    mandamus on an expedited consideration basis, alleging the district


    court has unduly delayed acting on his motion to vacate his
    sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000).

    He seeks an order

    from this court directing the district court to act.


    has been no undue delay in the district court.

    We find there

    Accordingly, we

    deny the motion to expedite and deny the mandamus 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

    - 2 -

    You might also like