In re: Jimmy L. Nance

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to amend/correct [999170454-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999170452-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999077189-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999077187-2] Originating case number: 7:92-cr-00135-JCT-RSB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999179401]. Mailed to: Nance. [13-1421]

Appeal: 13-1421

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1421

In Re: JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(7:92-cr-00135-JCT-RSB-1)

Submitted:

July 17, 2013

Decided:

August 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Lawrence Nance, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1421

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Lawrence Nance petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order compelling the district court to address claims
he contends were raised but not resolved in his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2013) proceedings.

We conclude that Nance 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

509,

394,

402

516-17

available

(1976);
(4th

only

clear right to the relief sought.

Kerr

when

Cir.
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 Nance is not available by way of
mandamus.

Accordingly, although we grant Nance leave to proceed

in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Nance’s

motions

for

appointment

mandamus petition are denied.

of

counsel

and

to

amend

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