In re Amu
This text of 603 F. App'x 202 (In re Amu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Jose Nacacio Amu petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (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 recently denied Amu’s motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782, and the court previously denied him a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Amu’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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
603 F. App'x 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amu-ca4-2015.