UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6048
In Re: MYRON A. MCCALL,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-97-53-F)
Submitted: March 20, 2002 Decided: April 2, 2002
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Myron A. McCall, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Myron A. McCall has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order from this court directing the Federal Bureau of
Prisons to designate Allendale Correctional Institution for service
of his federal sentence, thereby effectively making his federal
sentence run concurrently with his state sentence. Mandamus relief
is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the
relief sought. 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 situations. Kerr v. United
States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus 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 relief 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).
McCall has failed to show that he has a clear right to the
relief sought. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (1994) (granting Bureau of
Prisons plenary power to designate place of confinement). Moreover,
McCall may raise his claims by way of a petition under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 (1994). Accordingly, we deny his petition for a writ of
2
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.
PETITION DENIED
3