Filed: Feb. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2163 In re: FELIX A. OKAFOR, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (5:12-cr-00059-H-1; 5:16-cv-00425-H) Submitted: January 31, 2018 Decided: February 13, 2018 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Felix A. Okafor, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Felix A. Okafor peti
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2163 In re: FELIX A. OKAFOR, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (5:12-cr-00059-H-1; 5:16-cv-00425-H) Submitted: January 31, 2018 Decided: February 13, 2018 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Felix A. Okafor, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Felix A. Okafor petit..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2163
In re: FELIX A. OKAFOR,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(5:12-cr-00059-H-1; 5:16-cv-00425-H)
Submitted: January 31, 2018 Decided: February 13, 2018
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Felix A. Okafor, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Felix A. Okafor petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that 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 Okafor’s motion on December 18, 2017.
Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Okafor’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