UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1382
In Re: REGINALD L. FRAZIER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-29)
Submitted: April 7, 2003 Decided: April 28, 2003
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald L. Frazier, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Frazier, disbarred as an attorney in 1989, has
recently been convicted in North Carolina state court of several
counts stemming from his unauthorized practice of law. He
petitions this court for a writ of mandamus staying his sentence or
ordering the state court to set a reasonable bond pending appeal.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a
clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus is a drastic
remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. 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 may not be used
as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d
958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). This court does not have jurisdiction to
grant mandamus relief against state officials, see Gurley v.
Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.
1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review state court orders,
see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,
482 (1983). Thus, the relief sought by Frazier is not available by
way of mandamus.
Accordingly, we deny Frazier’s motion for stay or injunction
of his sentence and deny his petition for mandamus relief. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments
2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3