UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4491
In Re: ROBERT G. WHITE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-00-22)
Submitted: August 12, 2002 Decided: September 19, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert G. White, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert G. White has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking to have this court compel the district court to hold a
suppression hearing or an evidentiary hearing to resolve his claims
raised in a motion to dismiss the indictment filed May 2, 2002.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in
extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.
1987). 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 prohibition or 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).
White has not made such a showing. Whether White is entitled
to a hearing is an issue that should be raised in the district
court in the first instance. If that motion is denied, White may
challenge the adverse ruling on appeal from the court’s final
order. Therefore, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny White’s petition for a writ of mandamus. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3