Filed: Aug. 31, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1445 In re: TONY ALFORENZO WALKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (No. 2:93-cr-00084-AWA-1) Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: August 31, 2015 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Alforenzo Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tony Alforenzo Walker petitions for a writ of ma
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1445 In re: TONY ALFORENZO WALKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (No. 2:93-cr-00084-AWA-1) Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: August 31, 2015 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Alforenzo Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tony Alforenzo Walker petitions for a writ of man..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1445 In re: TONY ALFORENZO WALKER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (No. 2:93-cr-00084-AWA-1) Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: August 31, 2015 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Alforenzo Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tony Alforenzo Walker petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) 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 Walker’s motion on July 27, 2015. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Walker’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We also deny as moot Walker’s motion requiring a response. 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
