Filed: Apr. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8108 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ALBERT RANDOLPH, a/k/a Spo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00304-JRS-11) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Randolph, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8108 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ALBERT RANDOLPH, a/k/a Spo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00304-JRS-11) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Randolph, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8108 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ALBERT RANDOLPH, a/k/a Spo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00304-JRS-11) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffy, Robert E. Trono, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Albert Randolph appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for sentencing transcripts. The district court’s order was entered on November 26, 2012. However, on January 22, 2013, the district court granted Randolph’s subsequent motion for sentencing transcripts. As Randolph has already received the relief he seeks, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We deny Randolph’s motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
