In re: Sonya Skinner ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2179 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/11/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2179
In re: SONYA SKINNER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. (2:16-cr-00017-RCY-LRL-1)
Submitted: March 10, 2023 Decided: April 11, 2023
Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sonya Skinner, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2179 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/11/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Sonya Skinner has filed two substantially similar petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order correcting her sentence. We conclude that Skinner is not entitled to
mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,
LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when
the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to
attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re
Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Skinner is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly,
we deny the petitions for writ of mandamus and deny Skinner’s motion for release pending
a decision. 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
2