Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Jose Amu V., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Jose Nacacio Amu's petition for a writ of mandamus. Amu had petitioned the court to order the district court to act on his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). However, the Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's docket and found that the district court had recently denied Amu's motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782. Because the district court had already decided Amu's case, the Court of Appeals denied the mandamus petition as moot.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-05-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-1289

    Original Title

    In Re: Jose Amu v., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Jose Nacacio Amu's petition for a writ of mandamus. Amu had petitioned the court to order the district court to act on his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). However, the Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's docket and found that the district court had recently denied Amu's motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782. Because the district court had already decided Amu's case, the Court of Appeals denied the mandamus petition as moot.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    In Re: Jose Amu V., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Jose Nacacio Amu's petition for a writ of mandamus. Amu had petitioned the court to order the district court to act on his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). However, the Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's docket and found that the district court had recently denied Amu's motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782. Because the district court had already decided Amu's case, the Court of Appeals denied the mandamus petition as moot.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-1289

    In Re: JOSE NACACIO AMU, a/k/a Amu, a/k/a Sld Dft 3:97-40-11,
    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (3:97-cr-00040-FDW-11)

    Submitted:

    April 7, 2015

    Decided:

    May 14, 2015

    Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jose Nacacio Amu, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jose Nacacio Amu petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging
    the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for a
    sentence

    reduction

    under

    18

    U.S.C.

    3582(c)(2)

    (2012).

    He

    seeks an order from this court directing the district court to


    act.

    Our review of the district courts docket reveals that the

    district

    court

    reduction
    denied

    based

    him

    Accordingly,

    recently
    on

    Amendment

    sentence

    because

    denied

    the

    Amus

    782,

    reduction
    district

    motion

    and

    the

    based
    court

    on
    has

    for
    court

    sentence

    previously

    Amendment
    recently

    Amus case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot.

    750.

    decided

    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

    You might also like