In re: Muhammed Abdullah
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999678612-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999689727-2] Originating case number: 5:04-cr-00371-F-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999722289]. Mailed to: Muhammed Abdullah. [15-2245]
Appeal: 15-2245
Doc: 8
Filed: 12/21/2015
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2245
In re:
MUHAMMED MAHDEE ABDULLAH,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(5:04-cr-00371-F-1)
Submitted:
December 17, 2015
Decided:
December 21, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-2245
Doc: 8
Filed: 12/21/2015
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order recalling the mandate in his direct criminal
appeal.
We conclude that Abdullah 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).
The relief sought by Abdullah is not available by way of
mandamus.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny the petition for 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?