eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2001-03

In Re: Johnson v. , 5 F. App'x 319 ( 2001 )


Menu:
 
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6168
In Re: RONNIE DEVONE JOHNSON, a/k/a Spanky,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.    (CR-96-157-HO)
Submitted:   March 8, 2001                  Decided:   March 16, 2001
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie Devone Johnson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Devon Johnson has filed a petition for writ of mandamus
seeking this court to compel the district court to properly apply
the United States Sentencing Guidelines to his sentence.   Mandamus
is a drastic remedy, only to be granted in extraordinary circum-
stances.    In re Beard,
    811 F.2d 818
    , 826 (4th Cir. 1987) (citing
Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
    426 U.S. 394
     (1976)).   The party
seeking mandamus relief has the heavy burden of showing that he has
no other adequate avenues of relief and that his right to the
relief sought is "clear and indisputable."      Mallard v. United
States Dist. Court,
    490 U.S. 296
    , 309 (1989) (quoting Bankers Life
& Casualty Co. v. Holland,
    346 U.S. 379
    , 384 (1953)); Beard, 811
F.2d at 826.    Courts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of
mandamus, and the decision is within the discretion of the court
addressing the application for the writ.    Beard, 811 F.2d at 827
(citations omitted).
We find that Johnson has not met his burden of proof such that
mandamus is the proper remedy in this situation.   Mandamus is not
a substitute for appeal or for collateral review of a criminal
conviction, and Johnson's right to relief by way of mandamus is not
clear.     Mallard, 490 U.S. at 309; In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass'n,
    860 F.2d 135
    , 138 (4th Cir. 1988).    Accordingly, we grant
Johnson’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, and deny his re-
quest for mandamus.    We dispense with oral argument because the
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3