Filed: Oct. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1761 IN RE: SANDRA ELLIOTT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:09-cr-00383-BO-1) Submitted: October 17, 2017 Decided: October 19, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sandra Elliott, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sandra Elliott petitions for a writ of
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1761 IN RE: SANDRA ELLIOTT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:09-cr-00383-BO-1) Submitted: October 17, 2017 Decided: October 19, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sandra Elliott, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sandra Elliott petitions for a writ of ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1761 IN RE: SANDRA ELLIOTT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:09-cr-00383-BO-1) Submitted: October 17, 2017 Decided: October 19, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sandra Elliott, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sandra Elliott petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on her motion seeking to dismiss the criminal information and all related petitions and pleadings, to withdraw her plea agreement, and for return of property. She 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 has now dismissed the motion. Accordingly, because the district court has recently ruled on Elliott’s motion, 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
