In Re: Rodney Whitney v., 16-1279 (2016)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 16-1279
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1279 In re: RODNEY W. WHITNEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (3:11-cr-00049-FDW-1) Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23, 2016 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney W. Whitney, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rodney W. Whitney petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging th
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1279 In re: RODNEY W. WHITNEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (3:11-cr-00049-FDW-1) Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23, 2016 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney W. Whitney, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rodney W. Whitney petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging tha..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1279
In re: RODNEY W. WHITNEY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(3:11-cr-00049-FDW-1)
Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23, 2016
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney W. Whitney, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney W. Whitney 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 conclude 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
Source: CourtListener
