In Re: Wilkes v., 03-6582 (2003)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 03-6582
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jul. 30, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6582 In Re: SHONE EDWARD WILKES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-31-8) Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 30, 2003 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shone Edward Wilkes, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Shone Edward Wilkes
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6582 In Re: SHONE EDWARD WILKES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-31-8) Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 30, 2003 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shone Edward Wilkes, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Shone Edward Wilkes p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6582 In Re: SHONE EDWARD WILKES, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-31-8) Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 30, 2003 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shone Edward Wilkes, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Shone Edward Wilkes petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed in acting, because it has not ordered the Government to respond to his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to order the Government to respond. Our review of the record reveals that the district court has dismissed Wilkes’ § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we deny Wilkes’ mandamus petition as moot but grant his 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
Source: CourtListener
