In Re: Carlos Sanders v., 14-2377 (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 14-2377
Visitors: 27
Filed: Feb. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2377 In re: CARLOS ALEXANDER SANDERS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (No. 5:12-cr-00158-FL-1; 5:13-cv-00873-FL) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos Alexander Sanders, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlos Alexander Sanders p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2377 In re: CARLOS ALEXANDER SANDERS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (No. 5:12-cr-00158-FL-1; 5:13-cv-00873-FL) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos Alexander Sanders, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlos Alexander Sanders pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2377
In re: CARLOS ALEXANDER SANDERS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(No. 5:12-cr-00158-FL-1; 5:13-cv-00873-FL)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carlos Alexander Sanders, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Alexander Sanders petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in
ruling on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (2012) motion. 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
