Filed: Jun. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1954 In re: WILLIAM HASKINS, a/k/a Julio, a/k/a, K.C., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:95-cr-00072-7) Submitted: May 28, 2015 Decided: June 18, 2015 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Haskins, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Haskins petiti
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1954 In re: WILLIAM HASKINS, a/k/a Julio, a/k/a, K.C., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:95-cr-00072-7) Submitted: May 28, 2015 Decided: June 18, 2015 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Haskins, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Haskins petitio..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1954
In re: WILLIAM HASKINS, a/k/a Julio, a/k/a, K.C.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:95-cr-00072-7)
Submitted: May 28, 2015 Decided: June 18, 2015
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Haskins, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Haskins petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging
the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) 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 magistrate judge recently
entered a report and recommendation as to the disposition of
Haskins’ motion and Haskins has filed objections thereto.
Accordingly, because there has been recent action on Haskins’
§ 2255 motion, 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 this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2