United States of America v. Anthony Andrews, a/k/a Wheat

UNPUBLISHED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.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
No. 22-7332, affirmed; No. 23-1086, petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 of 3 --

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 of 3 --