UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7511
In Re: RODNEY H. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-01-231)
Submitted: November 4, 2005 Decided: November 21, 2005
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney H. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rodney H. Williams petitions for writ of mandamus. He
seeks an order directing this court to retract and correct alleged
errors in the opinion issued in United States v. Williams, No. 03-
4148, 2003 WL 21744160 (4th Cir. July 29, 2003) (unpublished). He
further seeks an order directing certain judges that considered his
direct criminal appeal be recused. The mandate in Williams’ appeal
was entered September 10, 2003. As a result, this court is without
jurisdiction over the case. See Johnson v. Bechtel Assoc. Prof’l
Corp., D.C., 801 F.2d 412, 415 (D.C. Cir. 1986); United States v.
DiLapi, 651 F.2d 140, 144 (2d. Cir. 1981). 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). A court of appeals may issue a writ “for the sole
purpose of protecting the respective jurisdiction” of the court.
Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587
(4th Cir. 1969). Because this court is without jurisdiction over
the appeal and very unlikely to ever regain jurisdiction, there is
no basis upon which to grant the writ. Moreover, assuming this
court had jurisdiction, there is no basis upon which it would enter
an order to itself in order to protect its jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. We
grant Williams’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
- 3 -