In Re: Anirudh Sukhu v.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1903
In Re: ANIRUDH LAKHAN SUKHU,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:08-cr-00557-WDQ-1; 1:15-cv-00720-WDQ;
1:15-cv-00730-WDQ; 1:15-cv-00732-WDQ)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: January 11, 2016
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anirudh Lakhan Sukhu, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anirudh Lakhan Sukhu petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order directing the district court to correct his
sentence by removing a sentencing enhancement We conclude that
Sukhu is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only
in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426
U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509,
516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Mandamus relief is available only when
there are no other means by which the relief sought could be
granted, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and
should not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed
Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Further,
mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a
clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
The relief sought by Sukhu is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2