In re: William Chapman, 18-1590 (2018)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 18-1590
Visitors: 28
Filed: Jul. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1590 In re: WILLIAM DEAN CHAPMAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:13-cr-00233-CMH-1) Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: July 23, 2018 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Dean Chapman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Dean Chapman petitions for a writ of mandamus, all
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1590 In re: WILLIAM DEAN CHAPMAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:13-cr-00233-CMH-1) Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: July 23, 2018 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Dean Chapman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Dean Chapman petitions for a writ of mandamus, alle..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1590 In re: WILLIAM DEAN CHAPMAN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:13-cr-00233-CMH-1) Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: July 23, 2018 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Dean Chapman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Dean Chapman petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his motion for reconsideration. 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
