Filed: Sep. 18, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6644 In Re: THOMAS WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:06-cv-00075-JRS) Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 18, 2007 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Williams petitions for wr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6644 In Re: THOMAS WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:06-cv-00075-JRS) Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 18, 2007 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Williams petitions for wri..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6644 In Re: THOMAS WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:06-cv-00075-JRS) Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 18, 2007 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Williams petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. The district court dismissed Williams’ § 2255 motion by order entered August 3, 2007. Therefore, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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 -
