Filed: Oct. 18, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6889 In Re: ROBERT WILLIAM PUCKETT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-98-12, CA-99-161-7-F) Submitted: September 25, 2001 Decided: October 18, 2001 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert William Puckett, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On May 29, 2001, Rober
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6889 In Re: ROBERT WILLIAM PUCKETT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-98-12, CA-99-161-7-F) Submitted: September 25, 2001 Decided: October 18, 2001 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert William Puckett, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On May 29, 2001, Robert..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6889 In Re: ROBERT WILLIAM PUCKETT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-98-12, CA-99-161-7-F) Submitted: September 25, 2001 Decided: October 18, 2001 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert William Puckett, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: On May 29, 2001, Robert Puckett filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that this court direct the district court to enter a ruling in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001), motion filed on September 9, 1999. The district court entered an order in the § 2255 proceeding on August 28, 2001. Because the district court has recently acted on Puckett’s petition, we find no unrea- sonable delay. Thus, mandamus relief is not warranted. According- ly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
