United States v. Moore

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7366
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TIMOTHY ANTHONY MOORE, a/k/a Tim Allison,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-93-217)
Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Anthony Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Timothy A. Moore appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his petition for writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is
a drastic remedy and should be granted only in those extraordinary
situations when no other remedy is available. In re Beard, 811
F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a sub-
stitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960
(4th Cir. 1979). Here, Moore could have appealed the district
court’s order resentencing him based on his assistance to the Gov-
ernment in criminal prosecutions. Because there was an alternate
method for seeking the requested relief, and because Moore presents
no extraordinary circumstances, the district court properly denied
the petition. Accordingly, we affirm. See United States v. Moore,
No. CR-93-217 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 6, 2000). 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.
AFFIRMED
2