In Re: David Lee Smith v.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1619
In re: DAVID LEE SMITH,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(No. 5:15-hc-02128-D)
Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order directing the district court to enter an order
resentencing him on his state sentence to time served, directing
the United States Attorney to file a motion, and for his warden
to immediately release him. We conclude that Smith 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). 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).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re
Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). To
the extent Smith seeks an order directing state officials to
act, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus
relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of
Mecklenburg Cty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does
not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, Dist.
of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482
(1983).
2
The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of
mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of
mandamus and supplemental petitions. We grant permission to
proceed in forma pauperis and deny Smith’s motion for bail. 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
3