In Re: Keith v. ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2351
In Re: CHARLES KEITH,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:97-cr-00004-IMK-JSK-1)
Submitted: March 13, 2009 Decided: April 6, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Keith, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
After this court in 2005 vacated seven of the eighteen
counts on which Charles Keith was convicted in 1997, the
district court denied Keith’s motion for resentencing. Keith
now has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order
compelling the district court to strike the vacated counts from
his judgment, refund the special assessment imposed on the
vacated counts, and resentence him under the advisory federal
sentencing guidelines. We conclude that Keith is not entitled
to mandamus relief.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only
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 relief is available only where there
is no other available remedy. In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261
(4th Cir. 2001). Because Keith had other means of pursuing the
relief he sought, namely to file an appeal from the district
court’s order denying his motion for resentencing, mandamus
relief is not available.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3