UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7697
In Re: SONNI WILSON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: February 27, 2002 Decided: March 11, 2002
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sonni I. Wilson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sonni I. Wilson filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this
court seeking release from his incarceration in a Virginia prison,
where he was transferred on behalf of the federal Bureau of
Prisons. Wilson argues that he is being detained beyond the
expiration of his federal prison sentence, which was imposed after
trial and conviction in the District of Columbia for bank fraud and
related crimes. The government filed a response to Wilson’s peti-
tion, stating that Wilson is being held not as an extension of his
federal prison sentence, but because the Immigration and Natural-
ization Service has instituted removal proceedings against him.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Wilson’s petition, and so
must dismiss it. Original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus
generally resides in district courts, not appellate courts. See 28
U.S.C.A. § 1361 (West 1993). The All Writs Act does vest all
statutorily created federal courts, including this court, with
authority to issue “all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of
their respective jurisdictions . . . .” See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651
(West 1994) (emphasis added). However, Wilson’s petition, stemming
from a District of Columbia conviction and sentence, fails to
implicate the independent basis for our jurisdiction necessary to
proceed under the All Writs Act. See In re Chambers Develop. Co.,
148 F.3d 214, 223 n.6 (3d Cir. 1998) (stating that the All Writs
Act requires that “the case may at some future time come within the
2
court’s appellate jurisdiction”). Accordingly, although we grant
Wilson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his motion
for counsel and dismiss his petition. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal issues are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3