In Re James Henry Miller, in Re James Henry Miller

Fourth Circuit

In Re James Henry Miller, in Re James Henry Miller

887 F.2d 1080

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 8, 1989

Docket89-8033

StatusUnpublished

This text of 887 F.2d 1080 (In Re James Henry Miller, in Re James Henry Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re James Henry Miller, in Re James Henry Miller, 887 F.2d 1080 (4th Cir. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

887 F.2d 1080
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 James Henry MILLER, Petitioner.
In re James Henry MILLER, Petitioner.

Nos. 89-8033, 89-8041.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 22, 1989.
Decided: Oct. 6, 1989.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 8, 1989.

James Henry Miller, petitioner pro se.

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

James Henry Miller brought these mandamus petitions challenging the validity of his conviction for aiding and abetting a bank robbery, claiming that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He sought an order from this Court directing the district court to hold a hearing on these claims. Miller has raised these same claims unsuccessfully on direct appeal, in a 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 petition, and in two prior petitions for mandamus relief. United States v. Miller, No. 84-5350 (4th Cir. Nov. 15, 1985) (unpublished); United States v. Miller, No. 88-7248(L) (4th Cir. Feb. 21, 1989) (unpublished). We have consolidated the petitions because of their similarity.

Mandamus relief is not appropriate when there are other means available by which the petitioner could secure the desired relief. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). As Miller's conviction could be attacked either on direct appeal or by a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255, the petitions for writ of mandamus are denied. Miller's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.

PETITIONS DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

887 F.2d 1080
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 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 James Henry MILLER, Petitioner.
In re James Henry MILLER, Petitioner.

Nos. 89-8033, 89-8041.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 22, 1989.
Decided: Oct. 6, 1989.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 8, 1989.

James Henry Miller, petitioner pro se.

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

James Henry Miller brought these mandamus petitions challenging the validity of his conviction for aiding and abetting a bank robbery, claiming that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He sought an order from this Court directing the district court to hold a hearing on these claims. Miller has raised these same claims unsuccessfully on direct appeal, in a 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 petition, and in two prior petitions for mandamus relief. United States v. Miller, No. 84-5350 (4th Cir. Nov. 15, 1985) (unpublished); United States v. Miller, No. 88-7248(L) (4th Cir. Feb. 21, 1989) (unpublished). We have consolidated the petitions because of their similarity.

Mandamus relief is not appropriate when there are other means available by which the petitioner could secure the desired relief. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). As Miller's conviction could be attacked either on direct appeal or by a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255, the petitions for writ of mandamus are denied. Miller's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.

PETITIONS DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

887 F.2d 1080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-james-henry-miller-in-re-james-henry-miller-ca4-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack