In re: Travanti Roberts

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1327 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1327
In re: TRAVANTI ROBERTS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:04-cr-00370-
TLW-1)
Submitted: July 20, 2023 Decided: July 25, 2023
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Travanti Roberts, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1327 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Travanti Roberts petitions for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court has
unduly delayed in ruling on his motion for compassionate release. Roberts seeks an order
from this court directing the district court to act.
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). Mandamus relief is available only when there are
no other means by which the relief sought could be granted and when the petitioner
“show[s] that his right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable.” United States v.
Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 517 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and brackets
omitted); see Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81. Unreasonable delay in the district court may be
cause for mandamus relief. In re United States ex rel. Drummond, 886 F.3d 448, 450 (5th
Cir. 2018) (collecting cases); cf. Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 437 U.S. 655, 661-62 (1978)
(“There can be no doubt that, where a district court persistently and without reason refuses
to adjudicate a case properly before it, the court of appeals may issue the writ.”).
We conclude that the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court
so as to render any delay unreasonable. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. ∗
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
∗
Notwithstanding our disposition on the current mandamus petition, we encourage
the district court to act as expeditiously as possible in this matter.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1327 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3