Barnett v. Bledsoe , 202 F. App'x 591 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7002
In Re: BERNARD BARNETT,
Petitioner.
No. 06-7200
BERNARD BARNETT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
BLEDSOE, Warden, United States Penitentiary at
Lee County; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:06-cv-00255-JLK)
Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: October 2, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
No. 06-7002, petition denied, and No. 06-7200, affirmed by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard Barnett, Petitioner/Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Bernard Barnett petitions
for a writ of mandamus and appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)
In No. 06-7002, Barnett petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order vacating his convictions and sentences. Mandamus
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, we accordingly conclude that Barnett is not entitled to
mandamus relief. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th
Cir. 1979). We therefore deny his petition for mandamus relief.
We grant Barnett leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
however, with respect to No. 06-7200, we have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Barnett v. Bledsoe, No.
7:06-cv-00255 (W.D. Va. May 9, 2006).
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.
No. 06-7002, PETITION DENIED;
No. 06-7200, AFFIRMED
- 3 -