Court Opinion

ID: 9555417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 21:00:43.033158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:06.845198
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1671      Doc: 9         Filed: 08/10/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1671

        In re: COREY THOMAS JONES,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
        District of Virginia, at Alexandria. (1:11-cr-00530-CMH-2)

        Submitted: September 29, 2022                                     Decided: August 10, 2023

        Before GREGORY and HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Corey Thomas Jones, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1671         Doc: 9       Filed: 08/10/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Corey Thomas Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court

        has unduly delayed in acting on five postjudgment motions filed in his criminal case. See

        United States v. Jones, No. 1:11-cr-00530-CMH-2 (E.D. Va., PACER Nos. 281-85). He

        seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. However, the district court

        has recently denied relief on each of these motions. Accordingly, we deny this part of

        Jones’ mandamus petition as moot.

               Jones’ petition also alleges undue delay as to a motion he filed in April 2022. Our

        review of the present record does not reveal undue delay as to that motion. Thus, we deny

        relief on this part of 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.

                                                                                 PETITION DENIED

                                                        2