Filed: Sep. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1210 In re: MUSTAFA MUHAMMAD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:14-cr-00055-REP-DJN-1; 3:16-cv-00798-REP-DJN) Submitted: September 11, 2019 Decided: September 19, 2019 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mustafa Muhammad, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mustafa Muhammad petitions for a w
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1210 In re: MUSTAFA MUHAMMAD, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:14-cr-00055-REP-DJN-1; 3:16-cv-00798-REP-DJN) Submitted: September 11, 2019 Decided: September 19, 2019 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mustafa Muhammad, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mustafa Muhammad petitions for a wr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1210
In re: MUSTAFA MUHAMMAD,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:14-cr-00055-REP-DJN-1; 3:16-cv-00798-REP-DJN)
Submitted: September 11, 2019 Decided: September 19, 2019
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mustafa Muhammad, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mustafa Muhammad 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 denied Muhammad’s motion on July 19, 2019. Accordingly, because
the district court has recently decided Muhammad’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