Filed: Dec. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1429 In re: CHRISTOPHER STEVE GANNAWAY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:09-cr-00418-NCT-1; 1:11-cv-01055-NCT-JEP) Submitted: November 27, 2018 Decided: December 20, 2018 Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Steve Gannaway, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CU
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1429 In re: CHRISTOPHER STEVE GANNAWAY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:09-cr-00418-NCT-1; 1:11-cv-01055-NCT-JEP) Submitted: November 27, 2018 Decided: December 20, 2018 Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Steve Gannaway, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CUR..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1429
In re: CHRISTOPHER STEVE GANNAWAY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:09-cr-00418-NCT-1; 1:11-cv-01055-NCT-JEP)
Submitted: November 27, 2018 Decided: December 20, 2018
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Steve Gannaway, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Steve Gannaway 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 granted Gannaway’s motion in part on
November 13, 2018, and scheduled a resentencing hearing for December 18.
Accordingly, because the district court has recently acted upon Gannaway’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