In re: Jermaine Jerrell Sim

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000048592-2]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [1000043601-2] Originating case number: 3:98-cr-00045-CMH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000105221]. Mailed to: Jermaine Jerrell Sims FCI BUTNER MEDIUM II FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 1500 Butner, NC 27509-0000 Kenneth E. Melson. [17-1338]

Appeal: 17-1338

Doc: 20

Filed: 06/22/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1338

In re: JERMAINE JERRELL SIMS, a/k/a Justice, a/k/a Jus,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:98-cr-00045-CMH-1)

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine Jerrell Sims, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: June 22, 2017

Appeal: 17-1338

Doc: 20

Filed: 06/22/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Jerrell Sims petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing
the district court to transfer United States v. Sims, No. 3:98-cr-00045, from the
Alexandria Division to the Richmond Division of the Eastern District of Virginia for any
further proceedings. We conclude that Sims 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).
Because Sims has shown neither extraordinary circumstances nor his clear right to
the transfer, he is not entitled mandamus relief. Accordingly, although we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

2