In re Jordan

Fourth Circuit

In re Jordan

242 F. App'x 912

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 2007

DocketNo. 07-6363

StatusPublished

This text of 242 F. App'x 912 (In re Jordan) 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 Jordan, 242 F. App'x 912 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Givionne Richardo Jordan petitions for a writ of mandamus, claiming there has been undue delay by the district court in disposing of his motion to compel production of his sentencing transcripts. The district court entered its final judgment order denying Jordan’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and that judgment disposed of Jordan’s pending motions, including his motion to compel production of transcripts. This court subsequently denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal of that order. See United States v. Jordan, 223 Fed.Appx. 272 (4th Cir.2007) (unpublished). We therefore deny Jordan’s petition for a writ of mandamus as moot. We grant Jordan leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this court. 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.

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

PER CURIAM:

Givionne Richardo Jordan petitions for a writ of mandamus, claiming there has been undue delay by the district court in disposing of his motion to compel production of his sentencing transcripts. The district court entered its final judgment order denying Jordan’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and that judgment disposed of Jordan’s pending motions, including his motion to compel production of transcripts. This court subsequently denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal of that order. See United States v. Jordan, 223 Fed.Appx. 272 (4th Cir.2007) (unpublished). We therefore deny Jordan’s petition for a writ of mandamus as moot. We grant Jordan leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this court. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 F. App'x 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jordan-ca4-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack