Filed: Nov. 21, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 21, 2019
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1786 In re: MICHAEL RANKINS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:14-cr-00003-FL-1) Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: November 21, 2019 Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Rankins, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Rankins petitions f
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1786 In re: MICHAEL RANKINS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:14-cr-00003-FL-1) Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: November 21, 2019 Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Rankins, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Rankins petitions fo..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1786 In re: MICHAEL RANKINS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:14-cr-00003-FL-1) Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: November 21, 2019 Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Rankins, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Rankins petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion seeking DNA testing of certain evidence from his criminal proceeding, 18 U.S.C. § 3600(B) (2012. 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 entered an order denying Rankins’ motion on August 12, 2019. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Rankins’ 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
