Court Opinion

ID: 9381816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 21:01:19.002065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:34.640213
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7332        Doc: 11         Filed: 03/22/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                               UNPUBLISHED

                                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                     FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 22-7332

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ANTHONY ANDREWS, a/k/a Wheat,

                               Defendant – Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:16-cr-00030-D-3)

                                                 No. 23-1086

        In re: ANTHONY ANDREWS, a/k/a Wheat,

                               Petitioner.

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:16-cr-00030-D-3)

        Submitted: March 14, 2023                                       Decided: March 22, 2023

        Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7332      Doc: 11         Filed: 03/22/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        No. 22-7332, affirmed; No. 23-1086, petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Anthony Andrews, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7332      Doc: 11         Filed: 03/22/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               In No. 22-7332, Anthony Andrews appeals the district court’s order disposing of

        several postjudgment motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Andrews, No. 7:16-cr-

        00030-D-3 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2022). While we grant Andrews’ motion to seal the informal

        brief, we deny his motions to proceed by pseudonym and to consolidate.

               In No. 23-1086, Andrews petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district

        court has unduly delayed in ruling on two motions—one challenging a standing order and

        the other seeking to disqualify the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) assigned to

        this case. However, the district court order on appeal in No. 22-7332 disposed of Andrews’

        challenge to the standing order. Thus, this request is moot.

               As for the motion seeking the disqualification of the AUSA, the district court

        docketed Andrews’ motion on October 24, 2022. Thus, the present record does not reveal

        undue delay in the district court. * Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. 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.

                                                                       No. 22-7332, AFFIRMED;
                                                                No. 23-1086, PETITION DENIED

               *
                We note that while it appears that the district court intended to dispose of this
        motion in its November 7, 2022, order, that order did not rule on this motion. In light of
        the voluminous filings submitted by Andrews, we do not fault the district court for
        overlooking this one discrete request for relief.

                                                     3