Filed: Jun. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6631 In Re: JAMES RAY STANLEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-328-1) Submitted: May 23, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Ray Stanley, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James R. Stanley seeks a petition for writ of mandamu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6631 In Re: JAMES RAY STANLEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-328-1) Submitted: May 23, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Ray Stanley, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James R. Stanley seeks a petition for writ of mandamus..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6631
In Re: JAMES RAY STANLEY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-328-1)
Submitted: May 23, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002
Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Ray Stanley, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James R. Stanley seeks a petition for writ of mandamus, 28
U.S.C. § 1651 (1994). He alleges that the prosecution has not
responded to his motion, under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2001), attacking his conviction for health care fraud. A search of
court records reveals, however, that although Stanley filed a
direct appeal from his conviction, he does not have a § 2255
proceeding pending.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy
burden of showing he has no other adequate means to attain the
relief he desires, and that his right to such relief is clear and
indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,
449 U.S. 33, 35
(1980) (citations omitted). Mandamus cannot be used as a substitute
for an appeal. In re United Steelworkers,
595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th
Cir. 1979).
Stanley has not shown that he is entitled to the relief he
seeks. Therefore, we deny his 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