Court Opinion

ID: 9404759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-24 21:00:43.136575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:16.930809
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1736      Doc: 5          Filed: 06/23/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1736

        In re: DAVID HILL,

                             Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
        District of Virginia, at Alexandria. (1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1; 1:20-cv-00474-CMH-TCB)

        Submitted: November 10, 2022                                        Decided: June 23, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        David Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1736         Doc: 5      Filed: 06/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               David Hill petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has

        unduly delayed acting on the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition transferred to Hill’s criminal

        case. Hill seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of

        the district court’s docket reveals that, by order entered on September 21, 2022, the district

        court denied the § 2241 petition identified in the instant mandamus petition. See United

        States v. Hill, No. 1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1 (E.D. Va. PACER No. 453). Accordingly,

        because the district court recently decided Hill’s petition, 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