Filed: Sep. 04, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6698 In Re: MELVIN ADAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-93-102-ALL) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin Adams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Melvin Adams filed a pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6698 In Re: MELVIN ADAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-93-102-ALL) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin Adams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Melvin Adams filed a pet..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6698
In Re: MELVIN ADAMS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-93-102-ALL)
Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melvin Adams, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Adams filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
requesting this court to compel the district court to reduce his
criminal sentence. Mandamus is a drastic remedy, which will only
be granted in extraordinary circumstances. See In re Beard, 811
F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist.
Court,
426 U.S. 394 (1976)). The party seeking mandamus relief has
the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate avenues
of relief and that his right to the relief sought is “clear and
indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,
449 U.S. 33,
35 (1980) (citations omitted); In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,
860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). We find that Adams has not met
his burden of proving that mandamus is the proper remedy in this
situation. Rather, Adams could have raised this claim on direct
appeal and/or in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. See In re United
Steelworkers of Am.,
595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979) (mandamus
may not be used as substitute for appeal).
Accordingly, while we grant Adams’ motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. 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
