In re: Diego Noyola, No. 21-2312 (4th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-2312 In re: DIEGO ALEJANDRO NOYOLA, a/k/a Alexander Vargas, a/k/a Alfredo Valanzar-Noyola,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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.