Filed: May 14, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1289 In Re: JOSE NACACIO AMU, a/k/a Amu, a/k/a Sld Dft 3:97-40-11, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:97-cr-00040-FDW-11) Submitted: April 7, 2015 Decided: May 14, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Nacacio Amu, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1289 In Re: JOSE NACACIO AMU, a/k/a Amu, a/k/a Sld Dft 3:97-40-11, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:97-cr-00040-FDW-11) Submitted: April 7, 2015 Decided: May 14, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Nacacio Amu, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1289
In Re: JOSE NACACIO AMU, a/k/a Amu, a/k/a Sld Dft 3:97-40-11,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:97-cr-00040-FDW-11)
Submitted: April 7, 2015 Decided: May 14, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose Nacacio Amu, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Nacacio Amu petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging
the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for a
sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). 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 recently denied Amu’s motion for a sentence
reduction based on Amendment 782, and the court previously
denied him a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750.
Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided
Amu’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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