In re: Johnny Gore

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999191266-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999191267-2] Originating case number: 4:01-cr-00627-CWH-9 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999225436]. Mailed to: J. Gore. [13-2114]

Appeal: 13-2114

Doc: 5

Filed: 10/24/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2114

In re:

JOHNNY LEE GORE, a/k/a Manager,

Petitioner.

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

Submitted:

October 22, 2013

Decided:

October 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 13-2114

Doc: 5

Filed: 10/24/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Johnny

Lee

Gore

petitions

for

a

writ

of

mandamus,

alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on
his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion.

He seeks an

order from this court directing the district court to act, or an
order

vacating

his

sentence.

We

conclude

that

Gore

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

U.S.

F.3d
is

circumstances.
394,

509,

402

516-17

available

Kerr

(1976);
(4th

only

clear right to the relief sought.

United

United

Cir.

when

v.

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).
We find the present record does not reveal undue delay
in the district court.

Furthermore, Gore has not shown that he

has a clear right to have his sentence vacated.

Accordingly, we

grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus
petition.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
PETITION DENIED

2