In Re: Williams

Opinion

Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

9-27-2007

In Re: Williams Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-3103

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

Recommended Citation "In Re: Williams " (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 365. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/365

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. AMENDED HLD-148 (August 2007) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 07-3103 ________________

IN RE: DWIGHT WILLIAMS, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 05-cr-00576) _____________________________________

Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. August 24, 2007 Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Filed September 27, 2007) _______________________

OPINION _______________________

PER CURIAM.

It appears that Dwight Williams was arrested in September 2005, and since

that time has been detained while awaiting trial on drug charges. Williams claims that on

May 15, 2007, he filed a pro se motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3162, seeking to challenge

the legality of his incarceration. Williams seeks a writ of mandamus directing the District

Court to rule on the motion. Importantly, however, the District Court docket contains no

1 entry of a pro se filing by Williams in May 2007. We cannot, of course, direct

adjudication of a motion which has not been filed. Accordingly, we will deny the

mandamus petition.1

1 We also deny Williams’ motion for appointment of counsel. To the extent that Williams seeks information about court-appointed representation in his criminal proceedings, his inquiries should be directed to the District Court.