Filed: Feb. 25, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2131 In Re: LORENZA PORTER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:95-cr-00080-RLW) Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 25, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenza Porter, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lorenza Porter petitions for a writ of
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2131 In Re: LORENZA PORTER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:95-cr-00080-RLW) Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 25, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenza Porter, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lorenza Porter petitions for a writ of ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2131
In Re: LORENZA PORTER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(3:95-cr-00080-RLW)
Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 25, 2008
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lorenza Porter, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lorenza Porter petitions for a writ of mandamus for an
order re-sentencing him with respect to his 1996 conviction for
conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to
distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and heroine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846. He also challenges our decision in United States v.
Bowens, 224 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2002), and apparently seeks an order
overturning it. We conclude that Porter is not entitled to
mandamus relief.
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). Further, mandamus is a
drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976); In re Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United
Steelworkers,
595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
The relief sought by Porter is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, 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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 2 -
