In re: Willis v., 98-571 (1998)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 98-571
Visitors: 26
Filed: Sep. 01, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-571 In Re: JAMES C. WILLIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-92-25-7-1) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 1, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James C. Willis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Petitioner filed this
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-571 In Re: JAMES C. WILLIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-92-25-7-1) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 1, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James C. Willis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Petitioner filed this p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-571 In Re: JAMES C. WILLIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-92-25-7-1) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 1, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James C. Willis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this court direct the district court to act on his motions for a revocation hearing. We find no unreasonable delay. Therefore, while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to refile the petition. 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
Source: CourtListener
