Filed: Oct. 02, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1543 In re: TRAVIS DENORRIS ARNOLD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Nos. 1:08-cr-00322-TDS-1; 1:16-cv-00725-TDS-JEP) Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 2, 2017 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis Denorris Arnold, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Travis Denorris Arno
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1543 In re: TRAVIS DENORRIS ARNOLD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Nos. 1:08-cr-00322-TDS-1; 1:16-cv-00725-TDS-JEP) Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 2, 2017 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis Denorris Arnold, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Travis Denorris Arnol..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1543
In re: TRAVIS DENORRIS ARNOLD,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(Nos. 1:08-cr-00322-TDS-1; 1:16-cv-00725-TDS-JEP)
Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 2, 2017
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Travis Denorris Arnold, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Travis Denorris Arnold 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 dismissed the motion on June 23, 2017.
Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Arnold’s case, we deny the
mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny
Arnold’s motion to suspend appellate proceedings. 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