UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1227
In Re: DANIEL WATLINGTON,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:05-cr-00004-F-1)
Submitted: April 15, 2009 Decided: April 28, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Watlington, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Watlington petitions for a writ of mandamus in
which he seeks an order remanding the assets in the Pallie Trust
to the stated trust beneficiary. We conclude that Watlington is
not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner
has a “clear right to the relief sought.” In re First Fed. Sav.
& Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further,
mandamus is a drastic remedy reserved for 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).
“[M]andamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.” In re
United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).
The relief sought by Watlington is not available by
way of mandamus. The proper avenue for Watlington to contest
the district court’s decision allowing the government to use the
trust funds for restitution is a direct appeal, a route
Watlington has already pursued without success. Accordingly, we
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the petition
for writ of mandamus.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3