UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7344
In Re: MARC PIERRE HALL,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CR-95-5, CA-99-61-3)
Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001
Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Pierre Hall, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Marc Pierre Hall has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking to have this court direct the district court to review and
rule upon pleadings in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000)
motion filed on February 17, 1999. Hall asks this court to direct
the district court to order the Government to respond to the
supplements to pleadings he wishes to file, rule on his Apprendi v.
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), claim after the Government has
responded, and upon a favorable ruling, set bail and order trans-
portation for him from prison in Texas to North Carolina. Mandamus
is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances.
Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Man-
damus relief is only available 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 may not be used as a substitute for
appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir.
1992). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden
of showing that he has “no other adequate means to attain the re-
lief he desires” and that his entitlement to such relief is “clear
and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S.
33, 35 (1980). Hall has not made such a showing. In a December 4,
2000, order issued by the district court, he received some of the
relief he sought. The remainder of the relief he seeks is properly
to be determined by the district court and does not warrant manda-
2
mus relief. Accordingly, we deny Hall’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and his petition for mandamus relief. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3