United States v. Law , 354 F. App'x 738 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7288
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRELL LAW, a/k/a B,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00020-IMK-DJJ-9; 1:08-cv-00171-IMK-
DJJ)
Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed; petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darrell Law, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley,
Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Law seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion for the recusal of United States District
Court Judge Keeley. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Law seeks to appeal is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Law requests that his informal appellate brief also be
considered as a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking an
order from this court directing Judge Keeley to be recused from
his pending post-conviction proceeding. 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. United
States v. Maussaoui, 333 F. 3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003).
Law’s allegations regarding Judge Keeley’s purported
extrajudicial bias fall far short of those necessary to warrant
her recusal. Accordingly, we conclude Law is not entitled to
mandamus relief.
2
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction and 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.
DISMISSED; PETITION DENIED
3