In re: Vincent William

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999473328-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999473332-2], denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999464889-2] Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00047-HEH-10 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999495937]. Mailed to: Vincent Williams. [14-2165]

Appeal: 14-2165

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/18/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2165

In re: VINCENT A. WILLIAMS, a/k/a V,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(No. 3:12-cr-00047-HEH-10)

Submitted:

December 16, 2014

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

DIAZ,

Circuit

Decided: December 18, 2014

Judges,

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent A. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2165

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/18/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Vincent A. Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus,
seeking an order from this court declaring that the district
court

lacked

jurisdiction

over

his

criminal

prosecution.

We conclude that Williams is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances.

Kerr v. U. S. Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d
509,

516-17

(4th

Cir.

2003).

Further,

mandamus

relief

is

available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the
relief sought.
135,

138

(4th

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d
Cir.

1988).

substitute for appeal.

Mandamus

may

not

be

used

as

a

In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d

351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Williams is not available by way
of mandamus.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and
the corrected petition for a writ of mandamus.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2