Filed: Jul. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1606 In re: RAHKEEM CHEEKS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:15-cr-00137-1) Submitted: July 12, 2018 Decided: July 18, 2018 Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rahkeem Cheeks, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rahkeem Cheeks petitions for a writ of mandam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1606 In re: RAHKEEM CHEEKS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:15-cr-00137-1) Submitted: July 12, 2018 Decided: July 18, 2018 Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rahkeem Cheeks, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rahkeem Cheeks petitions for a writ of mandamu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1606
In re: RAHKEEM CHEEKS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:15-cr-00137-1)
Submitted: July 12, 2018 Decided: July 18, 2018
Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rahkeem Cheeks, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rahkeem Cheeks 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 denied Cheeks’ § 2255 motion on June 21, 2018.
Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Cheeks’ case, we deny the
mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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