In re: Cornelius Noble

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999617738-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999617718-2] Originating case number: 5:15-hc-02129-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999680398]. Mailed to: Cornelius Alvin Nobles. [15-1758]

Appeal: 15-1758

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1758

In re: CORNELIUS ALVIN NOBLES,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:15-hc-02129-FL)

Submitted:

October 15, 2015

Decided:

October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cornelius Alvin Nobles, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1758

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Cornelius Alvin Nobles petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking
state

an

order

directing

convictions

for

the

district

first-degree

court

murder

and

to
six

vacate
counts

his
of

discharging a firearm onto occupied property and to order his
unconditional release from prison.

We conclude that Nobles 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: (1) the petitioner has a “clear and indisputable”
right to the relief sought and (2) there are no other means by
which the relief sought could be granted.
at 517.

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d

We conclude that Nobles has failed to satisfy either

requirement.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny Nobles’ petition for a 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