Filed: May 31, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1435 In re: GEORGE WASHINGTON CRANE, V, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:13-cr-00297-LO-1) Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: May 31, 2017 Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Washington Crane, V, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Washington Crane, V petitions for a writ o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1435 In re: GEORGE WASHINGTON CRANE, V, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:13-cr-00297-LO-1) Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: May 31, 2017 Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Washington Crane, V, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Washington Crane, V petitions for a writ of..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1435
In re: GEORGE WASHINGTON CRANE, V,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:13-cr-00297-LO-1)
Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: May 31, 2017
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Washington Crane, V, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George Washington Crane, V petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the
district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (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 Crane’s motion on May 1,
2017. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Crane’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