In re: Golden v.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2103
In Re: WILLIAM D. GOLDEN,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-135-1)
Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 23, 2004
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William D. Golden, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William D. Golden has filed a petition for writ of
mandamus requesting that the court invalidate an agreement entered
into by him and the Government in the district court in a
settlement of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Golden asserts
that the terms of the agreement are invalid and, therefore, the
agreement should be vacated and an evidentiary hearing reinstated.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,
402 (1976). Courts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of
mandamus. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987).
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear
and indisputable right to the relief sought and there are no other
adequate means for obtaining the relief. Allied Chem. Corp. v.
Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980); Beard, 811 F.2d at 826.
We find that Golden has not made a sufficient showing
that he has a clear and indisputable right to vacate the agreement
and reinstate the evidentiary hearing or that there is no other
adequate means of obtaining the relief. We, therefore, deny the
petition. We deny Golden’s motion to dismiss the petition without
prejudice. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
- 2 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -