Filed: May 09, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2134 In re: RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1) Submitted: November 18, 2015 Decided: May 9, 2016 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Edward Chestnut, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond Edward Chestnut pet
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2134 In re: RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1) Submitted: November 18, 2015 Decided: May 9, 2016 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Edward Chestnut, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond Edward Chestnut peti..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2134 In re: RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1) Submitted: November 18, 2015 Decided: May 9, 2016 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Edward Chestnut, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond Edward Chestnut petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for reconsideration of the order denying Chestnut’s Motion Arresting Judgment. He seeks an order from this court to compel the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court entered a text order denying Chestnut’s motion for reconsideration on September 28, 2015. Accordingly, because the district court has recently ruled on Chestnut’s motion, 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
