Filed: Dec. 29, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7229 In Re: STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-299) Submitted: November 22, 2004 Decided: December 29, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stanley Lorenzo Williams file
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7229 In Re: STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-299) Submitted: November 22, 2004 Decided: December 29, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stanley Lorenzo Williams filed..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7229 In Re: STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-299) Submitted: November 22, 2004 Decided: December 29, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stanley Lorenzo Williams filed a petition for writ of mandamus alleging undue delay in the district court’s ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Williams filed his § 2254 petition in April 2003. The district court ruled on the petition on September 7, 2004, after Williams filed his mandamus petition. Accordingly, the mandamus petition is now moot. Therefore, although we grant Williams’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for mandamus relief. 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 - 2 -
