In Re Roszetta M. McNeill

D.C. Circuit

In Re Roszetta M. McNeill

976 F.2d 46, 1992 WL 215416

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedAugust 28, 1992

Docket92-8001

StatusUnpublished

This text of 976 F.2d 46 (In Re Roszetta M. McNeill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Roszetta M. McNeill, 976 F.2d 46, 1992 WL 215416 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

976 F.2d 46

298 U.S.App.D.C. 98

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
In re Roszetta M. McNEILL, Petitioner.

No. 92-8001.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Aug. 28, 1992.

Before MIKVA, Chief Judge, and BUCKLEY and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motion for expedited consideration and the petition for a writ of mandamus, it is

ORDERED that the motion for expedited consideration be denied. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 40 (1987). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus be denied. Petitioner has not met the burden of showing that the right to issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus is "clear and indisputable." See Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citations omitted). Further, petitioner has failed to demonstrate the inadequacy of the alternative remedies available upon appeal. In re GTE Service Corp., 762 F.2d 1024, 1026 (D.C.Cir.1985).

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