In re: Edward Floyd, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999196207-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999188160-2], denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999196205-2] Originating case number: 3:10-cr-00154-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999282127]. Mailed to: Floyd. [13-2103]

Appeal: 13-2103

Doc: 8

Filed: 01/23/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2103

In re:

EDWARD PETER FLOYD, JR.,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:10-cr-00154-1)

Submitted:

January 21, 2014

Decided: January 23, 2014

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Peter Floyd, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2103

Doc: 8

Filed: 01/23/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Edward
mandamus

Peter

seeking

an

Floyd,

order

Jr.,

petitions
relief

granting

for
a

on

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012).

a

writ

prior

of

motion

We conclude that

Floyd 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

U.S.

F.3d

relief

circumstances.

is

394,

509,

402

516-17

available

v.

(1976);
(4th

only

clear right to the relief sought.

Kerr

United

Cir.

when

United

2003).

the

States

States

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 sought by Floyd is not available by way of
mandamus.

Accordingly,

pauperis

and

dispense

with

contentions

deny

are

oral

the

we

grant

petition

argument

adequately

leave
for

writ

because

presented

to

in

proceed
of

the
the

in

forma

mandamus.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

2