Question not identified.

No question identified. : 3 N | © x Svea > Y v wits Apply u Onsteu C1 est Wacal A 8 a q. S & oa Le “pie pose | 3 P Ss — " be gelegy ctag hk Pact ¢ va) a —Cere fon beh On [ad Costes es “Peves “ad ie Ay dr, aren aya 5 O[L-SO TOT edo ‘ EF cA a | SHE capes 4 visle bere é 4 Y ! Sn. S22 f\ bled A Me bey~ [> 6 ES : Qj ves pe eer =P 28 osc 210) (Cf) feat < a rs Jo. los ra : ae ib. Ge. enna | vA on Y cae Fe, >. Box ldos “Det of Tewk CR Be as <“ Ne 29 88T 450 Pans Iemaca Arex NUD, eslin: 2D c. 205320 uses Pw Pooh ae dels ole oe . a Joan. = 9733 BIS| a (Ex, 4) UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-7332 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ANTHONY ANDREWS, a/k/a Wheat, Defendant —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 Inre: 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. No. 22-7332, affirmed; No. 23-1086, petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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-cr00030-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 (Ex. 2) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-7332 (L) (7:16-cr-00030-D-3) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff Appellee v. ANTHONY ANDREWS, a/k/a Wheat Defendant Appellant No. 23-1086 (7:16-cr-00030-D-3) In re: ANTHONY ANDREWS, a/k/a Wheat Petitioner ORDER FILED: May 1, 2023 The court denies the petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc. No judge requested a poll under Fed, R. App. P. 35 on the petitions for rehearing en banc. Entered at the direction of the panel: Judge Thacker, Judge Harris, and Senior Judge Motz. For the Court /s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk (Ex. 3) FILED: May 1, 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-7332 (L) (7:16-cr-00030-D-3) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff Appellee v. ANTHONY ANDREWS, a/k/a Wheat Defendant Appellant ORDER Upon consideration of submissions relative to the motion to stay mandate, the court denies the motion. For the Court--By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Clerk Washingt