UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7422
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BARBARA SUTTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CR-90-432-A, CA-02-539-A)
No. 02-7563
In Re: BARBARA SUTTON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-432-A)
Submitted: January 23, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
No. 02-7422, dismissed and No. 02-7563 petition denied by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barbara Sutton, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Frederickson, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In action No. 02-7422, Barbara Sutton seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude for the
reasons stated by the district court that Sutton has not made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See
United States v. Sutton, CR-90-432-A (E.D. Va., Sept. 10, 2002).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000).
In action No. 02-7563, Sutton petitions for a writ of
mandamus, seeking an order compelling the district court to appoint
her counsel and grant her an evidentiary hearing. 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). Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only
in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re: Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir.
1987). Sutton has not established a basis for mandamus relief.
Although we grant Sutton’s pending motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of 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 in the decisional process.
No. 02-7422 - DISMISSED
No. 02-7563 - PETITION DENIED
3