UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7171
In Re: WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-01-240)
Submitted: October 23, 2003 Decided: October 31, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William M. Bryson, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William M. Bryson, Jr., filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus requesting this court to order that he be resentenced and
requesting the assistance of counsel in his direct appeal from his
conviction. Mandamus is a drastic remedy, which will be granted
only in extraordinary circumstances. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d
818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394 (1976)). The party seeking mandamus relief has the
heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate avenues of
relief and that his right to the relief sought is “clear and
indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35
(1980) (citations omitted). We find that Bryson has not met this
burden. Rather, he has an adequate remedy in that he can raise his
sentencing claim in his direct appeal, which is pending before this
court and for which Bryson has appointed counsel. See In re United
Steelworkers of Am., 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979) (mandamus
may not be used as substitute for appeal).
Accordingly, while we grant Bryson’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for a 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 the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2