Filed: Mar. 28, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2275 In Re: ANTOINE HILL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cr-00407-REP-1; 3:10-cv-00772-REP) Submitted: March 23, 2012 Decided: March 28, 2012 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antoine Hill, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antoine Hill petitions for
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2275 In Re: ANTOINE HILL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cr-00407-REP-1; 3:10-cv-00772-REP) Submitted: March 23, 2012 Decided: March 28, 2012 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antoine Hill, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antoine Hill petitions for a..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2275
In Re: ANTOINE HILL,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:07-cr-00407-REP-1; 3:10-cv-00772-REP)
Submitted: March 23, 2012 Decided: March 28, 2012
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antoine Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antoine Hill petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. He seeks an order
from this court directing the district court to act, and has
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Our review
of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court
has ruled on Hill’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, although we
grant Hill’s in forma pauperis application, we deny the mandamus
petition as moot. 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