In Re: Hairston , 381 F. App'x 307 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1062
In Re: CHARLES LAMONT HAIRSTON; PETER LAMONT SMITH,
Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:06-cr-00307-NCT-1; 1:08-cr-00146-NCT-1)
Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Lamont Hairston, Peter Lamont Smith, Petitioners Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Lamont Hairston and Peter Lamont Smith
petition for a writ of mandamus seeking their immediate release
from incarceration pending disposition of their intended Qui Tam
action, an expedited decision in their intended Qui Tam action,
and orders of acquittal in all cases prosecuted by David Folmar
on behalf of the United States Attorney’s Office, and
accountability by the United States Attorney’s Office for
allowing Folmar to continue to work there after his license was
suspended. We conclude that Hairston and Smith are not entitled
to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States
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).
The relief sought by Hairston and Smith 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
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3