Filed: Jan. 22, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2030 In re: JOHN DAVID WHITE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:13-cr-00356-GJH-1; 8:17-cv-00047-GJH) Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 22, 2020 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John David White, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John David White petitions for a writ of ma
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2030 In re: JOHN DAVID WHITE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:13-cr-00356-GJH-1; 8:17-cv-00047-GJH) Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 22, 2020 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John David White, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John David White petitions for a writ of man..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-2030
In re: JOHN DAVID WHITE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(8:13-cr-00356-GJH-1; 8:17-cv-00047-GJH)
Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 22, 2020
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John David White, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John David White petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court
has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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 the motion on October 23, 2019. Accordingly, because the
district court has recently decided White’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot.
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