In Re: Antoine Hill, 13-1207 (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 13-1207
Visitors: 39
Filed: Apr. 09, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1207 In re: ANTOINE HILL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cr-00407-REP-1) Submitted: April 2, 2013 Decided: April 9, 2013 Before MOTZ and FLOYD, 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, al
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1207 In re: ANTOINE HILL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cr-00407-REP-1) Submitted: April 2, 2013 Decided: April 9, 2013 Before MOTZ and FLOYD, 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, all..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1207 In re: ANTOINE HILL, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cr-00407-REP-1) Submitted: April 2, 2013 Decided: April 9, 2013 Before MOTZ and FLOYD, 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West Supp. 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
