In Re: David Hill

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [998625203-2], denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [998648954-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998634794-2] Originating case number: 1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998704959]. Mailed to: Dabney Langhorne, David Hill. [11-1678]

Appeal: 11-1678

Document: 8

Date Filed: 10/20/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1678

In re: DAVID HILL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted:

October 18, 2011

(1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1)

Decided:

October 20, 2011

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1678

Document: 8

Date Filed: 10/20/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David Hill petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order

directing

the

district

court

to

correct

clerical error in Hill’s criminal judgment.

an

alleged

We conclude that

Hill is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances.

Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d
509,

516-17

(4th

Cir.

2003).

Further,

mandamus

relief

is

available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the
In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d

relief sought.

135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
Hill asks this court to order the district court to
correct

his

criminal

judgment.

However,

established a clear right to this relief.

Hill

has

not

Moreover, to the

extent that Hill complains of the district court’s denial of his
motion to correct his judgment, we note that mandamus may not be
used as a substitute for appeal.
503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
is no basis for mandamus relief.

In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,
Thus, we conclude that there
Accordingly, although we grant

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for
writ of mandamus.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 11-1678

Document: 8

materials

before

Date Filed: 10/20/2011

the

court

and

Page: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3