Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Donnie Sheffield, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Donnie Wayne Sheffield filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his motion for recusal filed as part of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court docket and found that the district court had denied the recusal motion on March 14, 2012. Therefore, because the district court has now ruled on the motion, the Court of Appeals denies the mandamus petition as moot. The Court of Appeals also grants Sheffield leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dispenses with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-07-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-1279

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Donnie Wayne Sheffield filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his motion for recusal filed as part of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court docket and found that the district court had denied the recusal motion on March 14, 2012. Therefore, because the district court has now ruled on the motion, the Court of Appeals denies the mandamus petition as moot. The Court of Appeals also grants Sheffield leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dispenses with oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Donnie Sheffield, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Donnie Wayne Sheffield filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his motion for recusal filed as part of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court docket and found that the district court had denied the recusal motion on March 14, 2012. Therefore, because the district court has now ruled on the motion, the Court of Appeals denies the mandamus petition as moot. The Court of Appeals also grants Sheffield leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dispenses with oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-1279

    In re:

    DONNIE WAYNE SHEFFIELD


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (4:07-cr-00769-TLW-1; 4:11-cv-03247-TLW)

    Submitted:

    July 19, 2012

    Decided:

    July 23, 2012

    Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Donnie Wayne Sheffield, Appellant Pro Se.


    Carrie Fisher
    Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Donnie

    Wayne

    Sheffield

    petitions

    for

    writ

    of

    mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting


    on his motion for recusal filed in his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West
    Supp. 2012) motion.

    He seeks an order from this court directing

    the district court to act.


    docket reveals

    that

    March 14, 2012.


    recently

    ruled

    the

    Our review of the district courts

    district

    court

    denied

    the

    motion

    on

    Accordingly, because the district court has


    on

    Sheffields

    motion,

    we

    deny

    the

    mandamus

    petition as moot.

    We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

    We

    oral

    dispense

    with

    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