In re: Travis Arnold

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999217187-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999201669-2] Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00322-TDS-1,1:10-cv-00892-TDS-JEP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999265204]. Mailed to: Travis Arnole & Paul Weinman. [13-2192]

Appeal: 13-2192

Doc: 6

Filed: 12/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2192

In re:

TRAVIS DENORRIS ARNOLD,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(Nos. 1:08-cr-00322-TDS-1; 1:10-cv-00892-TDS-JEP)

Submitted:

December 19, 2013

Decided:

December 23, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis Denorris Arnold, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2192

Doc: 6

Filed: 12/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Travis
mandamus

DeNorris

seeking

relinquishment

an

Arnold

order

of

petitions

to

permit

citizenship

for

him

and

a

to

writ
file

of
for

government-issued

identification and to withdraw all allegiances to the United
States.

We conclude that Arnold 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

circumstances.

U.S.

F.3d
is

394,

509,

402

516-17

available

only

clear right to the relief sought.

Kerr

(1976);
(4th

the

2003).

States

States

v.

Further,

petitioner

has

a

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
used as a substitute for appeal.

United

United

Cir.

when

v.

Mandamus may not be

In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,

503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Arnold is not available by way of
mandamus.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

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

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