Opinion
22-7332 23-1086
03-22-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTHONY ANDREWS, a/k/a Wheat, Defendant-Appellant. In re: ANTHONY ANDREWS, a/k/a Wheat, Petitioner.
Anthony Andrews, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 14, 2023
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)
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:16-cr-00030-D-3)
Anthony Andrews, Appellant Pro Se.
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
No. 22-7332, affirmed; No. 23-1086, petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.