Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Harry Williams, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Harry James Williams filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The appeals court reviewed the district court docket and found that the district court had denied Williams' motion on March 21, 2012, rendering the mandamus petition moot. The court therefore denied the mandamus petition and also denied without prejudice Williams' motion for a certificate of appealability, allowing him to refile it in his appeal of the district court's denial of his § 2255 motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-05-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-1140

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Harry James Williams filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The appeals court reviewed the district court docket and found that the district court had denied Williams' motion on March 21, 2012, rendering the mandamus petition moot. The court therefore denied the mandamus petition and also denied without prejudice Williams' motion for a certificate of appealability, allowing him to refile it in his appeal of the district court's denial of his § 2255 motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views2 pages

    In Re: Harry Williams, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Harry James Williams filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The appeals court reviewed the district court docket and found that the district court had denied Williams' motion on March 21, 2012, rendering the mandamus petition moot. The court therefore denied the mandamus petition and also denied without prejudice Williams' motion for a certificate of appealability, allowing him to refile it in his appeal of the district court's denial of his § 2255 motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-1140

    In Re:

    HARRY JAMES WILLIAMS,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (8:10-cr-00102-DKC-2; 8:11-cv-00950-DKC)

    Submitted:

    April 20, 2012

    Decided:

    May 3, 2012

    Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Harry James Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Harry James Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus,
    alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his
    motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28
    U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2011).

    He seeks an order from this

    court directing the district court to act.

    Our review of the

    district courts docket reveals that the district court denied


    the motion on March 21, 2012.

    Accordingly, because the district

    court

    Williams

    has

    mandamus

    recently

    petition

    as

    decided
    moot.

    We

    also

    motion,
    deny

    we

    deny

    Williams

    the

    pending

    motion for a certificate of appealability without prejudice to


    his ability to re-file it in his direct appeal from the district
    courts denial of his 2255 motion.

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED

    You might also like