Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    In Re: Travis Arnold, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Travis Arnold petitioned the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to act on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, alleging undue delay. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding no undue delay by the district court in acting on the § 2255 motion. While allowing Arnold to proceed in forma pauperis, the court dispensed with oral argument, stating the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    In Re: Travis Arnold, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Travis Arnold petitioned the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to act on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, alleging undue delay. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding no undue delay by the district court in acting on the § 2255 motion. While allowing Arnold to proceed in forma pauperis, the court dispensed with oral argument, stating the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-02-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-2257

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Travis Arnold petitioned the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to act on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, alleging undue delay. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding no undue delay by the district court in acting on the § 2255 motion. While allowing Arnold to proceed in forma pauperis, the court dispensed with oral argument, stating the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Travis Arnold, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Travis Arnold petitioned the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to act on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, alleging undue delay. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding no undue delay by the district court in acting on the § 2255 motion. While allowing Arnold to proceed in forma pauperis, the court dispensed with oral argument, stating the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case 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. 11-2257

    In re: TRAVIS DENORRIS ARNOLD,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (1:08-cr-00322-TDS-1)

    Submitted:

    January 31, 2012

    Decided:

    February 2, 2012

    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Travis Denorris Arnold, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Travis

    Denorris

    Arnold

    petitions

    for

    writ

    of

    mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting


    on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion.

    He seeks an

    order from this court directing the district court to act.


    find

    there

    Accordingly,

    has

    been

    although

    no
    we

    undue

    delay

    grant

    in

    leave

    pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition.

    the
    to

    district

    proceed

    in

    We

    court.
    forma

    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