In re: Brown v. , 114 F. App'x 100 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7278
IN RE: PATRICK FURMAN BROWN,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CR-98-282; CA-03-2869-05)
Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 30, 2004
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick Furman Brown, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Furman Brown petitions for writ of mandamus. He
seeks an order directing the district court to resentence him in
light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124
S. Ct. 2531 (2004).
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
a clear right to the relief sought. See 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. See 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. See In re
United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
The relief sought by Brown is not available by way of
mandamus. 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 contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 2 -