Filed: Mar. 26, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8103 In Re: LLOYD WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-92-239-WS) Submitted: March 12, 1996 Decided: March 26, 1996 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lloyd Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lloyd Wilberforce Williams filed a petition fo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8103 In Re: LLOYD WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-92-239-WS) Submitted: March 12, 1996 Decided: March 26, 1996 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lloyd Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lloyd Wilberforce Williams filed a petition for..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8103 In Re: LLOYD WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-92-239-WS) Submitted: March 12, 1996 Decided: March 26, 1996 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lloyd Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lloyd Wilberforce Williams filed a petition for a writ of man- damus claiming that the district court has failed to resentence him despite a decision by this court ordering resentencing. However, this court did not order resentencing. Rather, the court affirmed his sentence. United States v. Williams, No. 93-5256 (4th Cir. June 1, 1994) (unpublished). Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief and deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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
