Filed: Mar. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1009 In re: CHRISTOPHER ANDARYL WILLS, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (1:99-cr-00396-LMB-1) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Andaryl Wills, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Andar
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1009 In re: CHRISTOPHER ANDARYL WILLS, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (1:99-cr-00396-LMB-1) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Andaryl Wills, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Andary..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1009
In re: CHRISTOPHER ANDARYL WILLS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.
(1:99-cr-00396-LMB-1)
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Andaryl Wills, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Andaryl Wills petitions for a writ of
mandamus, requesting that this court revisit the conclusions it
reached in his direct appeal, which was decided in 2003. Based
upon our consideration of the materials submitted with Wills’
petition, we deny his request. See Kerr v. United States Dist.
Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) (observing that a writ of
mandamus “has traditionally been used in the federal courts only
to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its
prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its
authority when it is its duty to do so.”). 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