In Re: White v.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CORNELL COREY WHITE,
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (3:05-cv-00503)
February 22, 2007
March 5, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cornell Corey White, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Cornell Cory White petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order vacating his federal conviction for escape or, in the alternative, ordering the district court to expeditiously resolve his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion attacking that
We conclude that White is not entitled to mandamus
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Further, mandamus is a used in extraordinary
Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). drastic remedy and should only be
circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). be used as a substitute for appeal. F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). from this court vacating his Mandamus may not
In re United Steelworkers, 595
To the extent White seeks an order conviction, that relief is not
available by way of mandamus. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court denied White's § 2255 motion by order of February 15, 2007. We find that, to the extent White's mandamus petition complains of undue delay in the district court, the petition is moot.
Accordingly, although we grant White's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?