In re: Marc Hall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999529252-2], denying amended Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999538217-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999538210-2]; denying Motion to moot district court order [999552593-2]. Originating case number: 3:95-cr-00005-FDW-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999606380]. Mailed to: Marc Hall. [15-1152]

Appeal: 15-1152

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1152

In re:
Fella,

MARC

PIERRE

HALL,

a/k/a

Marc

Valeriano,

a/k/a

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(No. 3:95-cr-00005-FDW-1)

Submitted:

June 18, 2015

Decided:

June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marc Pierre Hall, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1152

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Marc Pierre Hall petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order directing the district court to rule on outstanding and
new 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) claims that he wishes to file.

We

conclude that Hall 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).
only

when

sought.

the

Further, mandamus relief is available

petitioner

has

a

clear

right

to

the

relief

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).
relief

sought

Accordingly,

by

Hall

although

is
we

not

available

grant

leave

by
to

way

of

proceed

The

mandamus.
in

forma

pauperis, we deny the petition and amended petition for writ of
mandamus.
We

We deny Hall’s motion to moot a district court order.

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2