Filed: Mar. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1072 In re: DAVID WILLIS, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cr-00277-RJC-DCK-1; 3:11-cv-00332-RJC) 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Willis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Willis petitio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1072 In re: DAVID WILLIS, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cr-00277-RJC-DCK-1; 3:11-cv-00332-RJC) 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Willis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Willis petition..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1072
In re: DAVID WILLIS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.
(3:07-cr-00277-RJC-DCK-1; 3:11-cv-00332-RJC)
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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Willis, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Willis petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 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
denied the motion on January 23, 2012. Accordingly, because the
district court has recently decided Willis’ case, 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