US v. Julian Thornton

Filing 920091014

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7775

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. JULIAN MATTHEW THORNTON, Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:03-hc-00194-BR)

Submitted:

September 4, 2009

Decided:

October 14, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julian Matthew Thornton, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Huband, BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Julian Matthew Thornton appeals the district court's order denying his motion to transfer venue and the district

court's subsequent order continuing his commitment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006). First, venue Finding no error, we affirm. is proper in the Eastern District of

North Carolina where Thornton was originally committed. U.S.C. § 4247(h) (2008).

See 18

Therefore, the district court did not Second, we Following an

err in denying Thornton's motion to transfer venue. find no error in Thornton's continued commitment.

evidentiary hearing, the district court entered an order finding by clear and convincing evidence that Thornton, who was

originally committed to the Attorney General's custody in 2003, continued to suffer from a mental disease or defect as a result of which his unconditional release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another. 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d). We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. district court's orders.

Accordingly, we affirm the

United States v. Thornton, No. 5:03-

hc-00194-BR (E.D.N.C. July 30, 2008; Aug. 4, 2008). Thornton also petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order recusing the district court judge. Thornton is not entitled to mandamus relief. We conclude that Mandamus relief is

available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the 2

relief sought.

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy Kerr v. In re

135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976);

Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). used as a substitute for appeal. F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

Mandamus may not be

In re United Steelworkers, 595 Thornton offers no showing of Moreover, because his direct appeal,

bias or impartiality of the district court. Thornton is able to seek relief through

mandamus relief is not available. mandamus petition.

Therefore, we deny Thornton's

We further deny Thornton's motions to transfer venue, to recuse, and to expand the record on appeal. oral argument because in the the facts and legal before We dispense with contentions the court are and

adequately

presented

materials

argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED

3