In Re: Davis v.

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6254 In Re: MARK DAVIS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-96-325) Submitted: April 10, 2000 Decided: July 24, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Davis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mark Davis has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this court direct the district court to resentence him in accordance with this Court’s opinion in United States v. Davis, 1999 WL 686894, *4 (4th Cir. Sept. 3, 1999) (No. 98-4037) (unpub- lished). Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary situ- ations. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d at 826, and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). Davis has taken an appeal in this very case. United States v. Davis, No. 00-4022. We grant Davis’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However, because he has not shown that there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, we deny his petition for mandamus relief. Further, we deny his motion to produce the transcript of the sentencing hearing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- 2 rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3