Filed: Oct. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1642 In re: MARK JACOB JONES, SR., a/k/a Mark J. Jones, Sr., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:14-cr-00132-RGD-LRL-2; 2:16-cv-00106-RGD-LRL) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Jacob Jones, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1642 In re: MARK JACOB JONES, SR., a/k/a Mark J. Jones, Sr., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:14-cr-00132-RGD-LRL-2; 2:16-cv-00106-RGD-LRL) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Jacob Jones, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIA..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1642
In re: MARK JACOB JONES, SR., a/k/a Mark J. Jones, Sr.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(2:14-cr-00132-RGD-LRL-2; 2:16-cv-00106-RGD-LRL)
Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Jacob Jones, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Jacob Jones, Sr., has filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district
court to rule on his motion for preparation of a transcript at
government expense, 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2012). We conclude that
Jones is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only
in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,
426
U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui,
333 F.3d 509,
516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In
re Lockheed Martin Corp.,
503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
Jones has failed to make such a showing. Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny
Jones’ petition for mandamus. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2