In re: Paul Boccone, 20-1371 (2020)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: 20-1371
Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 21, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1371 In re: PAUL P. BOCCONE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cr-00592-CMH-1) Submitted: September 9, 2020 Decided: September 21, 2020 Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul P. Boccone, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Paul P. Boccone petitions for a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1371 In re: PAUL P. BOCCONE, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cr-00592-CMH-1) Submitted: September 9, 2020 Decided: September 21, 2020 Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul P. Boccone, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Paul P. Boccone petitions for a ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1371
In re: PAUL P. BOCCONE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cr-00592-CMH-1)
Submitted: September 9, 2020 Decided: September 21, 2020
Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul P. Boccone, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Paul P. Boccone petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has
unduly delayed in ruling on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 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 Boccone’s motion on June 26, 2020. Accordingly, 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
