UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7007
In Re: JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-92-135)
Submitted: November 22, 2000 Decided: December 20, 2000
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy Lawrence Nance, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Lawrence Nance has filed a petition for writ of mandamus
seeking this court to compel the district court to issue an order
to stop the United States Bureau of Prisons from withholding funds
from his prisoner’s trust account for the purpose of paying his
court-ordered restitution. Nance claims that the involuntary with-
holding of funds from an inmate’s trust account violates this
court’s directives in United States v. Dawkins, 202 F.3d 711 (4th
Cir. 2000), United States v. Miller, 77 F.3d 71 (4th Cir. 1996),
and United States v. Johnson, 48 F.3d 806 (4th Cir. 1995). Nance
also seeks an order compelling the district court to reduce res-
titution by the amount of compensation his victim’s estate received
from third parties.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy, only to be granted in extra-
ordinary circumstances. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.
1987) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394
(1976)). The party seeking mandamus relief bears the heavy burden
of showing that he has no other adequate avenues of relief and that
his right to the relief sought is “clear and indisputable.”
Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989)
(quoting Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384
(1953)); Beard, 811 F.2d at 826. Courts are extremely reluctant to
grant a writ of mandamus, and the decision is within the discretion
2
of the court addressing the application for the writ. Beard, 811
F.2d at 827 (citations omitted).
We find that Nance has not met his burden of proof such that
mandamus is the proper remedy in this situation. Mandamus is not
a substitute for appeal, In re United Steelworkers of America, 595
F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979), and given that the district court’s
sentencing order requires immediate payment in full of restitution
by Appellant, and that this court has affirmed a district court
order denying Nance’s motion to disallow collection of restitution,
see United States v. Nance, No. 98-7023 (4th Cir. Dec. 2, 1998)
(unpublished), Nance’s right to relief by way of mandamus is not
clear. See Mallard, 490 U.S. at 309; In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1998). Moreover, although Nance
filed an unsuccessful motion in the district court seeking disclo-
sure of compensation paid to his victim’s estate, he apparently has
not filed a motion in the district court seeking a reduction in the
restitution based on compensation received by his victim’s estate.
Even if he had done so and the district court had denied relief,
Nance’s remedy would be to file an appeal.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pau-
peris, we deny Nance’s request for mandamus. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
3