Filed: Jul. 28, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1479 In re: WILLIAM LARNELL ECKLES, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:00-cr-00046-RLV-4) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014 Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Larnell Eckles, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Larnell Eck
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1479 In re: WILLIAM LARNELL ECKLES, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:00-cr-00046-RLV-4) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014 Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Larnell Eckles, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Larnell Eckl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1479
In re: WILLIAM LARNELL ECKLES, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:00-cr-00046-RLV-4)
Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Larnell Eckles, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Larnell Eckles, Jr., petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in
ruling on his 18 U.S.C. ยง 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. He seeks an
order from this court directing the district court to act. We
find that the present record does not reveal undue delay in the
district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2
