Case Name: IN RE: Raymond Edward CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Petitioner. In re: Raymond Edward Chestnut, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-28
Citations: 687 F. App'x 280
Docket Number: No. 17-1027, No. 17-1030
Parties: IN RE: Raymond Edward CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Petitioner. In re: Raymond Edward Chestnut, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Petitioner.
Judges: Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 687
Pages: 280–280

Head Matter:
IN RE: Raymond Edward CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Petitioner. In re: Raymond Edward Chestnut, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Petitioner.
No. 17-1027, No. 17-1030
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2017
Decided: April 28, 2017
Raymond Edward Chestnut, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Edward Chestnut petitions for writs of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his motions filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). He seeks orders from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court's docket reveals that the district court has issued a final order denying relief on the § 3582(c)(2) motion and dismissing the § 2255 motions. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided these motions, we deny the mandamus petitions and supplemental 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.
PETITIONS DENIED