Filed: Feb. 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7725 In Re: HENRY SMALLS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-91-288-2) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 17, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Smalls, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Henry Smalls filed a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7725 In Re: HENRY SMALLS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-91-288-2) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 17, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Smalls, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Henry Smalls filed a p..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7725
In Re: HENRY SMALLS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-91-288-2)
Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 17, 2000
Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Smalls, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Henry Smalls filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order compelling the district court to dismiss the indictment
against him, dismiss the judgment of conviction with prejudice, and
to release him from federal custody immediately. We deny the
petition.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in ex-
traordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) (writ of mandamus). Relief under this
writ is only available when there are no other means by which the
relief sought could be granted, see In re Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 826
(4th Cir. 1987), and it may not be used as a substitute for appeal.
See In re United Steelworkers,
595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
The party seeking relief carries the heavy burden of showing that
he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires”
and that his right to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” See
Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,
449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Smalls
has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny his petition for
a writ of mandamus. We also deny Smalls’ motion to proceed in
forma pauperis. 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