Case ID: f-appx_65/html/0905-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Owen ODMAN, Petitioner.
    No. 03-6471.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 29, 2003.
    Decided June 5, 2003.
    Owen Odman, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Owen Odman petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motions filed subsequent to his conviction and sentencing. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. Odman has also moved to amend his mandamus petition to request an order directing the district court to compel the United States Attorney’s office to begin an investigation of motions filed under Rule 35(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, for certain of his co-defendants. We grant the motion to amend. However, this relief is not available by way of mandamus. 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.