In re: Leroy Williamson v., 15-1142 (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 15-1142
Visitors: 21
Filed: May 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1142 In re: LEROY WILLIAMSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:10-cr-00123-FL-1; 7:13-cv-00194-FL) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Williamson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leroy Williamson petitio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1142 In re: LEROY WILLIAMSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:10-cr-00123-FL-1; 7:13-cv-00194-FL) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Williamson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leroy Williamson petition..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1142
In re: LEROY WILLIAMSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(7:10-cr-00123-FL-1; 7:13-cv-00194-FL)
Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leroy Williamson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leroy Williamson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging
that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28
U.S.C. ยง 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court
directing the district court to act. We find the present record
does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly,
we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the
mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2
Source: CourtListener