In Re: Anirudh Sukhu

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999645226-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999639023-2] Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00557-WDQ-1,1:15-cv-00720-WDQ,1:15-cv-00730-WDQ,1:15-cv-00732-WDQ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999733163]. Mailed to: Anirudh Sukhu. [15-1903]

Appeal: 15-1903

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/11/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1903

In Re:

ANIRUDH LAKHAN SUKHU,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:08-cr-00557-WDQ-1; 1:15-cv-00720-WDQ;
1:15-cv-00730-WDQ; 1:15-cv-00732-WDQ)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

January 11, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anirudh Lakhan Sukhu, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1903

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/11/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Anirudh

Lakhan

Sukhu

petitions

for

a

writ

of

mandamus

seeking an order directing the district court to correct his
sentence by removing a sentencing enhancement

We conclude that

Sukhu 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).

Mandamus relief is available only when

there are no other means by which the relief sought could be
granted, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and
should not be used as a substitute for appeal.
Martin

Corp.,

mandamus

503

relief

F.3d

is

351,

available

353

(4th

only

clear right to the relief sought.

Cir.

when

the

In re Lockheed

2007).

Further,

petitioner

has

a

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

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

relief

mandamus.

sought

by

Sukhu

is

not

available

by

way

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
dispense

of

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