Filed: Sep. 23, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-608 In Re: CARL ROBERT CHRISTY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-96-741-5-F, CR-89-9-F) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 23, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Robert Christy, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carl Robert Christy b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-608 In Re: CARL ROBERT CHRISTY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-96-741-5-F, CR-89-9-F) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 23, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Robert Christy, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carl Robert Christy br..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-608
In Re: CARL ROBERT CHRISTY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CA-96-741-5-F, CR-89-9-F)
Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 23, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl Robert Christy, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carl Robert Christy brings this mandamus petition complaining
about the district court’s handling of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994)
motion he filed concerning his conviction for conspiracy to possess
with the intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841 and 846 (1994). The district court denied § 2255 relief, and on
appeal, this court denied a certificate of appealability and dis-
missed the action. See United States v. Christy, No. 97-7107 (4th
Cir. June 22, 1998) (unpublished). Apparently, in this mandamus
petition, Christy seeks to revisit the concerns he raised in his
§ 2255 motion. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in
extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief may not be used as a
substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe,
973 F.2d 1133,
1135 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we deny Christy’s petition for
mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2