In Re: Larry Williams v., 14-1982 (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 14-1982
Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1982 In re: LARRY SINCLAIR WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:92-cr-00083-AVB-1) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Sinclair Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Sinclair Williams petitions for a writ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1982 In re: LARRY SINCLAIR WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:92-cr-00083-AVB-1) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Sinclair Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Sinclair Williams petitions for a writ o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1982
In re: LARRY SINCLAIR WILLIAMS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:92-cr-00083-AVB-1)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Sinclair Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Sinclair Williams petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in
ruling on his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
ยง 3582(c)(2) (2012). He seeks an order from this court
directing the district court to act. We find 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
Source: CourtListener