Filed: Aug. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1741 In re: DAVID WILBERT SHANTON, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:08-cr-00142-CCB-1; 1:14-cv-03194-CCB) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Wilbert Shanton, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Wi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1741 In re: DAVID WILBERT SHANTON, SR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:08-cr-00142-CCB-1; 1:14-cv-03194-CCB) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Wilbert Shanton, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Wil..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1741
In re: DAVID WILBERT SHANTON, SR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:08-cr-00142-CCB-1; 1:14-cv-03194-CCB)
Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Wilbert Shanton, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Wilbert Shanton, Sr., 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
