In re: Charles Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for judicial notice [999621351-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999612489-2]; terminating Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999599859-2] Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00032-RLV-DSC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999645693].. [15-1629]

Appeal: 15-1629

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1629

In Re:

CHARLES A. DAVIS,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:11-cr-00032-RLV-DSC-1)

Submitted:

August 20, 2015

Decided:

August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles A. Davis, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1629

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Charles A. Davis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order setting aside his conviction and sentence or directing
the district court to set aside his conviction and sentence.

We

conclude that Davis 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.
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).
The

relief

mandamus.

legal
before

by

Accordingly,

mandamus.
notice.

sought

Davis

we

is

deny

not

the

available

petition

by

for

way

of

writ

of

We also deny as moot Davis’ request for judicial
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