In re: Adonis Wilson, 18-2165 (2019)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 18-2165
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jan. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2165 In re: ADONIS GARTH WILSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:06-cr-00048-NCT-1; 1:07-cv-00700-NCT-WWD) Submitted: January 22, 2019 Decided: January 24, 2019 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adonis Garth Wilson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Adonis Garth Wilson petitions for
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2165 In re: ADONIS GARTH WILSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:06-cr-00048-NCT-1; 1:07-cv-00700-NCT-WWD) Submitted: January 22, 2019 Decided: January 24, 2019 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adonis Garth Wilson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Adonis Garth Wilson petitions for ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2165
In re: ADONIS GARTH WILSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:06-cr-00048-NCT-1; 1:07-cv-00700-NCT-WWD)
Submitted: January 22, 2019 Decided: January 24, 2019
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adonis Garth Wilson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adonis Garth Wilson 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
