In Re: Sean Lamont Dudley

Filing 920100407

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1871

In Re:

SEAN LAMONT DUDLEY, a/k/a John D. Brown, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(5:97-cr-00001-RLV)

Submitted:

March 16, 2010

Decided:

April 7, 2010

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean Lamont Dudley, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Sean Lamont Dudley has petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus. (i) order the In his petition, Dudley asks this court to: district on its court to "adjudicate (ii) recall or the its matters mandate give sua

currently affirming

stalled the

docket;"

district

court's

judgment;

(iii)

sponte consideration to whether the district court had authority to accept his a guilty plea court under to Fed. R. Crim. whether P. 11(b)(3) is a

(requiring

district

determine

there

factual basis for a guilty plea). To that: (1) he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought; (2) the responding party has a clear duty to do the specific act requested; (3) the act requested is an official act or duty; (4) there are no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires; and (5) the issuance of the writ will effect right and justice in the circumstances. In re Braxton, marks 258 and F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. We 2001) have (internal considered obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show

quotation

citation

omitted).

Dudley's petition and the district court docket sheet and find that the district court has recently disposed of Dudley's

"stalled" motions. requests for

We further conclude that Dudley's remaining do not meet the exacting requirements Accordingly,

relief

necessary for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and grant 2

Dudley's motion to supplement his mandamus petition, we deny the mandamus petition. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

contentions the court

materials

would

decisional process. PETITION DENIED

3