In Re: Pritchett v. , 155 F. App'x 728 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4833
In Re: RUDOLPH PRITCHETT,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-02-193-MJG)
Submitted: November 16, 2005 Decided: December 1, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rudolph Pritchett, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rudolph Pritchett petitions for writ of mandamus. He
seeks an order from this court directing that the district court
resentence him.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. &
Loan Assn, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is
a drastic remedy and should be used only 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 Pritchett is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, while we grant Pritchett’s motion for 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 -