UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7316
In Re: DAVID WILLIAM LINDER,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(2:04-cr-00191-JBF)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 8, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David William Linder, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David William Linder petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order directing the district court to provide Linder
with trial exhibits. Linder further requests that we overturn his
conviction. We deny the petition.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
a clear right to the relief sought and no other means to seek the
requested relief. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d
135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy
and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v.
United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Linder has not established he
is entitled to the relief sought, as he fails to establish the
requisite extraordinary circumstances. Further, mandamus may not
be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595
F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). This court recently affirmed
Linder’s conviction and sentence, see United States v. Linder, No.
05-4557, 2006 WL 2659067 (4th Cir. Sept. 15, 2006) (unpublished),
and he may raise any additional challenges in a motion pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We will not consider the propriety of
Linder’s conviction in this proceeding.
Accordingly, although we grant 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
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -