In re: Tiayon Evan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998669596-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [998669592-2] Originating case number: 2:04-cr-00099-RAJ-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998745792]. Mailed to: petitioner. [11-1930]

Appeal: 11-1930

Document: 5

Date Filed: 12/16/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1930

In re: TIAYON KARDELL EVANS,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted:

November 16, 2011

(2:04-cr-00099-RAJ-1)

Decided:

December 16, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tiayon Kardell Evans, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1930

Document: 5

Date Filed: 12/16/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Tiayon Kardell Evans petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order compelling the district court to vacate his
criminal judgment on the ground that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to convict him.

We conclude that Evans is not

entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only
Dist.

in

extraordinary

Court,

Moussaoui,
mandamus

426

333

relief

circumstances.

U.S.

F.3d
is

509,

394,

402

516-17

available

only

clear right to the relief sought.

Kerr

(1976);
(4th

the

States

States

2003).

v.

Further,

petitioner

has

a

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
used as a substitute for appeal.

United

United

Cir.

when

v.

Mandamus may not be

In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,

503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Evans is not available by way of
mandamus.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2