In re: Derrell Gilchrist ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-1611
    In re: DERRELL LAMONT GILCHRIST,
    Petitioner.
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (8:02-cr-00245-DKC-1)
    Submitted: October 29, 2018                                  Decided: November 7, 2018
    Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Derrell Lamont Gilchrist, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Derrell Lamont Gilchrist petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the
    district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his postjudgment motions challenging the
    district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this
    court directing the district court to act. The district court has stayed the action pending a
    decision by this Court in several cases challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.
    § 924(c)(3)(B) (2012). “The determination by a district judge in granting or denying a
    motion to stay proceedings calls for an exercise of judgment to balance the various
    factors relevant to the expeditious and comprehensive disposition of the causes of action
    on the court’s docket.” United States v. Ga. Pac. Corp., 
    562 F.2d 294
    , 296 (4th Cir.
    1977). In light of the district court’s reasonable use of its discretion here, we conclude
    that Gilchrist has not shown extraordinary circumstances justifying granting a writ of
    mandamus. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 
    426 U.S. 394
    , 402 (1976); United States v.
    Moussaoui, 
    333 F.3d 509
    , 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we grant leave to
    proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. 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