In re: Johnny Gore

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999067596-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999067595-2] Originating case number: 4:01-cr-00627-CWH-9,4:11-cv-70069-CWH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999092492]. Mailed to: Gore. [13-1357]

Appeal: 13-1357

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1357

In re:

JOHNNY LEE GORE, a/k/a Manager,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(4:01-cr-00627-CWH-9; 4:11-cv-70069-CWH)

Submitted:

April 18, 2013

Decided:

April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Lee Gore, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1357

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Johnny
seeking

an

motion

order

filed

criminal

Lee

Gore

petitions

directing

March

26,

proceedings.

the

2002,
Gore

for

district
during

was

a

court

the

eventually

judgment was entered November 20, 2002.

writ

of

to

course

mandamus

rule
of

on

a

Gore’s

convicted

and

a

We conclude that Gore

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

U.S.

F.3d
is

circumstances.

509,

394,

402

516-17

available

(1976);
(4th

only

clear right to the relief sought.

Kerr

Cir.

when

the

v.

United

United
2003).

States

States

v.

Further,

petitioner

has

a

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
The relief sought by Gore is not available by way of
mandamus, as his criminal case is closed.
we

grant

leave

to

proceed

in

petition for writ of mandamus.

forma

Accordingly, although

pauperis,

we

deny

the

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

2