In re: George Jefferson, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998970874-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [998970873-2]. Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00251-FL-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999004906]. Mailed to: George Jefferson. [12-2349]

Appeal: 12-2349

Doc: 6

Filed: 12/18/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2349

In Re:

GEORGE JEFFERSON, III, a/k/a Ace,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted:

December 13, 2012

(5:09-cr-00251-FL-1)

Decided:

December 18, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Jefferson, III, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-2349

Doc: 6

Filed: 12/18/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
George Jefferson, III petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order directing the district court to address whether
it had jurisdiction to sentence him as a career offender.

We

conclude that Jefferson is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only

in

Dist.

extraordinary

Court,

Moussaoui,
mandamus

426

333

relief

circumstances.

U.S.

F.3d
is

394,

509,

402

516-17

available

(1976);
(4th

only

clear right to the relief sought.

Kerr

Cir.

when

the

v.

United

United

States

States

2003).

v.

Further,

petitioner

has

a

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.
In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The

relief

mandamus.

sought

by

Jefferson

is

not

available

by

way

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

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

of

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2