Filed: Jul. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1614 In Re: ANTWONNE D. WHITE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:06-cr-00163-1) Submitted: July 16, 2014 Decided: July 25, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antwonne D. White, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antwonne D. White petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the distric
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1614 In Re: ANTWONNE D. WHITE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:06-cr-00163-1) Submitted: July 16, 2014 Decided: July 25, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antwonne D. White, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antwonne D. White petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1614 In Re: ANTWONNE D. WHITE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:06-cr-00163-1) Submitted: July 16, 2014 Decided: July 25, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antwonne D. White, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antwonne D. White petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his “Pro Se Petition to Correct/Amend” the district court’s order of March 24, 2014. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court granted White’s motion on June 27, 2014, and reduced his sentence to 210 months. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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
