US v. Eric Byer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999195174-2]. Originating case number: 2:02-cr-00077-RBS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999245679]. Mailed to: Eric Byers. [13-7340]

Appeal: 13-7340

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/22/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7340

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC MARIO BYERS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:02-cr-00077-RBS-1)

Submitted:

November 19, 2013

Before WYNN and
Circuit Judge.

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided: November 22, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Mario Byers,
Assistant
United
Appellee.

Appellant Pro Se.
States
Attorney,

Joseph Evan DePadilla,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7340

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/22/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Eric Mario Byers appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for transcripts at Government expense.
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

We

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

United States v. Byers, No. 2:02-cr-00077-RBS-1 (E.D.

Va. Aug. 9, 2013).
Byers also petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order directing the district court to respond to his pretrial
motions filed back in 2003.

We conclude that Byers 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

States

States

2003).

v.

Further,

petitioner

has

a

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

Because this issue

was addressed on direct appeal, see United States v. Byers, No.
03-4426, 2004 WL 1209015 (4th Cir. June 3, 2004) (unpublished),
Byers does not have a clear right to the relief sought.
Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

order,

deny Byers’ petition for a writ of mandamus and deny his motion
for transcripts at Government expense.
2

We dispense with oral

Appeal: 13-7340

Doc: 7

Filed: 11/22/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

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

AFFIRMED

3