In re: Arthur Jones ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1973 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1973
In re: ARTHUR F. JONES, a/k/a Arthur Palmer, a/k/a June, a/k/a Junior,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. (2:99-cr-00362-DCN-1)
Submitted: November 21, 2023 Decided: November 27, 2023
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur F. Jones, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1973 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Arthur F. Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the
district judge to vacate Jones’ criminal conviction for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
We conclude that Jones 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).
The relief sought by Jones is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we
deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We deny Jones’ motion to expedite as moot. 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