Whether the enforcement of an appellant mandate affirming the plain, unambiguous language of a previous order compelling specific non-discretionary action should be sought by writ of mandamus or by appeal

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether the enforcement of an appellant mandate affirming the plain, unambiguous language of a previous order compelling specific non-discretionary action should be sought by writ of mandamus or by appeal. II. Whether by denying the writ of mandamus, the | Fourth Circuit disregarded and thus sanctioned , orders that conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals to uncontested property and due process of the law. : III. Whether the Fourth Circuit itself made a determination that conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals when: a) it denied the motion of two general partners in a limited partnership, to be provided complete disclosure pursuant to RULPA Section 407 to determine if they received equal benefit in a sale, pursuant to RULPA Section 408; b) it threatened sanctions and a pre-filing injunction against defendants who have never been plaintiffs. ii PARTIES Beverly L. Hennager — Petitioner Louis A. Jennings Jr. 7 — Petitioner Katherine R. Dauphin — Respondent