Filed: Oct. 20, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1572 In Re: WILLIAM PENN REAVIS, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:07-cr-00075-JBF-JEB-1) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Penn Reavis, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Penn Reavis, Sr., petitions for a wr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1572 In Re: WILLIAM PENN REAVIS, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:07-cr-00075-JBF-JEB-1) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Penn Reavis, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Penn Reavis, Sr., petitions for a wri..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1572
In Re: WILLIAM PENN REAVIS, SR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:07-cr-00075-JBF-JEB-1)
Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Penn Reavis, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Penn Reavis, Sr., petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting
on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp 2010) motion. He seeks an
order from this court directing the district court to act. Our
review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district
court dismissed several claims and ordered the Government to
respond. Accordingly, because the district court has recently
taken action in Reavis’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as
moot. We grant leave 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