Court Opinion

ID: 9840358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-16 21:00:29.078997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.769704
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1552      Doc: 10         Filed: 09/15/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1552

        In re: RAYMOND IDEMUDIA AIGBEKAEN,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court of Maryland at
        Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief, District Court Judge; Stephanie A. Gallagher, District
        Court Judge; J. Mark Coulson, Beth P. Gesner, Timothy J. Sullivan, Magistrate Judges.
        (1:15-cr-00462-JKB-2)

        Submitted: September 7, 2023                                Decided: September 15, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Raymond Idemudia Aigbekaen, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1552      Doc: 10         Filed: 09/15/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Raymond Idemudia Aigbekaen petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the

        district court has unduly delayed acting on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence

        reduction, his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

        motion, and his motion to recuse the district judge. Aigbekaen 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 has since ruled on each of these motions. 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