In re: Watkins v., 07-6217 (2007)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 07-6217
Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 30, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6217 In Re: DEJUAN ANDERKO WATKINS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:02-cr-00106-F; 7:05-cv-00019-F) Submitted: April 20, 2007 Decided: April 30, 2007 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dejuan Anderko Watkins, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dejuan Ande
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6217 In Re: DEJUAN ANDERKO WATKINS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:02-cr-00106-F; 7:05-cv-00019-F) Submitted: April 20, 2007 Decided: April 30, 2007 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dejuan Anderko Watkins, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dejuan Ander..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6217 In Re: DEJUAN ANDERKO WATKINS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:02-cr-00106-F; 7:05-cv-00019-F) Submitted: April 20, 2007 Decided: April 30, 2007 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dejuan Anderko Watkins, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dejuan Anderko Watkins petitions for a writ of mandamus claiming there was undue delay by the district court in disposing of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The Government filed a response noting that the district court entered a judgment and order denying the § 2255 motion. In light of the court’s action, we deny as moot Watkins’ petition for a writ 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 - 2 -
Source: CourtListener
