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9-27-2007 In Re: Williams Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3103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 [email protected].

AMENDED HLD-148 (August 2007) NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 07-3103 ________________ IN RE: DWIGHT WILLIAMS, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a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

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

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.