US v. Julian Thornton
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
September 4, 2009
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
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
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
argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
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?