UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6403
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANDRE GERARD LEWIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-99-314)
No. 02-6851
In Re: ANDRE GERARD LEWIS,
Petitioner.
No. 02-6925
In Re: ANDRE GERARD LEWIS,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus. (CR-99-314)
Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 14, 2002
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
No. 02-6403 affirmed and Nos. 02-6851 and 02-6925 denied by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andre Gerard Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In No. 02-6403 Andre Gerard Lewis appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for grand jury transcripts. Because we
find Lewis failed to show a particularized need for the
transcripts, see United States v. Chase, 372 F.2d 453 (4th Cir.
1967), we affirm. We deny Lewis’ motions for an evidentiary hearing
and for in camera review of the transcripts.
In No. 02-6851 and No. 02-6925 Lewis has filed petitions for
writs of mandamus in this court.* Mandamus is a drastic remedy to
be used only in extraordinary circumstances. 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, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.
1987), and it may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re
United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 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 right to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied
Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Lewis has
not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny his petitions for
*
We construe the petition requesting this court to review the
sufficiency of the indictment and the grand jury proceedings as a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because Lewis has not filed
a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion under
28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994), we dismiss this petition.
3
writs of mandamus. We grant Lewis’ request to proceed in forma
pauperis.
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.
No. 02-6403 - AFFIRMED
Nos. 01-6951 & 01-6925 - PETITIONS DENIED
4