UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7658
In Re: RAYMOND H. MCDONALD,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Error Coram Nobis
(CR-91-552; CA-00-3944)
Submitted: February 9, 2004 Decided: February 27, 2004
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond H. McDonald, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Raymond H. McDonald petitions for a writ of mandamus and
for a writ of error coram nobis. He seeks an order to compel the
district court to vacate his conviction and sentence and order his
immediate release.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. &
Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus
is a drastic remedy and should be used only 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).
A writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651
(2000), can be used to vacate a conviction when there is a
fundamental error resulting in conviction, and no other means of
relief is available. See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502,
509-11 (1954); United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067, 1074-75 (4th
Cir. 1988). But see Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 429
(1996) (noting “it is difficult to conceive of a situation in a
federal criminal case today where a writ of coram nobis would be
necessary or appropriate.”).
Our review of the petitions for mandamus and coram nobis
lead us to conclude that McDonald has failed to establish that his
- 2 -
conviction is invalid, and he is therefore not entitled to relief
by way of mandamus or coram nobis. Accordingly, we deny McDonald’s
motion for judicial notice and deny the petitions for a writ of
mandamus and a writ of error coram nobis. 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
- 3 -