Filed: Apr. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2316 In re: RANDY E. SELF, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:95-cr-00315-JFA-1; 3:16-cv-01907-JFA) Submitted: March 22, 2018 Decided: April 6, 2018 Before AGEE, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy E. Self, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Randy E. Self petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2316 In re: RANDY E. SELF, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:95-cr-00315-JFA-1; 3:16-cv-01907-JFA) Submitted: March 22, 2018 Decided: April 6, 2018 Before AGEE, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy E. Self, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Randy E. Self petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2316
In re: RANDY E. SELF,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:95-cr-00315-JFA-1; 3:16-cv-01907-JFA)
Submitted: March 22, 2018 Decided: April 6, 2018
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy E. Self, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randy E. Self petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has
unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 issued an order granting § 2255 relief on December 15,
2017. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Self’s case, 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