In Re: Howard Scott v. ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1489
In re: HOWARD SCOTT,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(2:09-cr-00991-PMD-1)
Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23, 2016
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard Scott, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Howard Scott petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an
order directing the district court to hold an evidentiary
hearing to address whether Amendment 709 to the Sentencing
Guidelines applies to him. We conclude that Scott 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). The relief sought by Scott is not
available by way of mandamus because Scott fails to show any
clear right to relief in the form of an evidentiary hearing
regarding the applicability of Amendment 709. Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny
the petition for a writ of 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