In re: Williams v., 04-7835 (2005)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 04-7835
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 21, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7835 In Re: RODNEY H. WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (CR-01-231) Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 21, 2005 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney H. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rodney H. Williams petitions for writ of
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7835 In Re: RODNEY H. WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (CR-01-231) Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 21, 2005 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney H. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rodney H. Williams petitions for writ of ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7835 In Re: RODNEY H. WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (CR-01-231) Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 21, 2005 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney H. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rodney H. Williams petitions for writ of mandamus alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on motions filed in his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (2000) case. Williams seeks an order from this court directing the court to act. Although we find mandamus relief is not warranted because the district court has recently taken significant action in the case, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 -
Source: CourtListener
