Filed: Nov. 02, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1604 In re: FRANCISCO SALINAS-CASTILLO, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:10-cr-00188-REP) Submitted: October 24, 2017 Decided: November 2, 2017 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francisco Salinas-Castillo, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Francisco Salinas-Castillo petitions for a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1604 In re: FRANCISCO SALINAS-CASTILLO, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:10-cr-00188-REP) Submitted: October 24, 2017 Decided: November 2, 2017 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francisco Salinas-Castillo, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Francisco Salinas-Castillo petitions for a ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1604 In re: FRANCISCO SALINAS-CASTILLO, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:10-cr-00188-REP) Submitted: October 24, 2017 Decided: November 2, 2017 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francisco Salinas-Castillo, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Francisco Salinas-Castillo petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his motion to compel. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We have determined that the district court denied Salinas-Castillo’s motion on April 12, 2017. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. 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
