In re: Diego Alejandro Noyola, a/k/a Alexander Vargas, a/k/a Alfredo Valanzar-Noyola

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-2312
In re: DIEGO ALEJANDRO NOYOLA, a/k/a Alexander Vargas, a/k/a Alfredo
Valanzar-Noyola,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:16-cr-00383-NCT-1)
Submitted: May 5, 2022 Decided: May 23, 2022
Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Diego Alejandro Noyola, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Diego Alejandro Noyola petitions for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district
court has unduly delayed acting on his first amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which he
filed on September 30, 2019. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing
prison mailbox rule). We liberally construe this petition as also alleging that the district
court has unduly delayed acting on Noyola’s original § 2255 motion, which he filed on
August 19, 2019, and his second amended § 2255 motion, which he filed on
February 27, 2020. See id.; Martin v. Duffy, 977 F.3d 294, 298 (4th Cir. 2020) (reiterating
that courts must construe pro se pleadings liberally). Noyola seeks an order from this court
directing the district court to act.
Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that, by a judgment entered on
April 29, 2022, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation dated
April 1, 2022; construed Noyola’s amended § 2255 motions as the operative § 2255
motions; and denied relief on the merits or, alternatively, dismissed the motions as
untimely. Because the district court recently decided Noyola’s case, 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 of 2 --