UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6050
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOEL WAYNE TADLOCK,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-00670-TLW-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 5, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RAY COIT YARBOROUGH,
JR., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William
Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joel Wayne Tadlock appeals the district court’s denial
of his motion to compel the Government to file a Fed. R. Crim.
P. 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence and his petition for a
writ of mandamus. Tadlock’s attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating there are no meritorious issues for appeal and conceding
the district court properly denied both the motion to compel and
the petition for a writ of mandamus. Although informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Tadlock has not done
so. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
It is well-settled that whether to file a Rule 35(b)
motion is a matter left to the Government’s discretion. Fed. R.
Crim. P. 35(b); United States v. Dixon, 998 F.2d 228, 230 (4th
Cir. 1993). A court may remedy the Government’s refusal to move
for a reduction of sentence if: (1) the Government has obligated
itself in the plea agreement to move for a reduction; or (2) the
Government’s refusal to move for a reduction was based on an
unconstitutional motive. Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181,
185-86 (1992). Here, Tadlock’s plea agreement unequivocally
establishes that the decision whether to file a Rule 35(b)
motion rested within the sole discretion of the Government.
Moreover, there is no evidence that the Government’s refusal to
file a Rule 35(b) motion was based on an unconstitutional
2
motive. Accordingly, we find no error by the district court in
denying Tadlock’s motion to compel.
We further find the district court did not err in
denying Tadlock’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Mandamus is
a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances.
Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). “Courts are
extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” In re Beard,
811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus relief is available
only when the petitioner has a clear and indisputable right to
the relief sought and there are no other adequate means for
obtaining the relief. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449
U.S. 33, 35 (1980); Beard, 811 F.2d at 826. The district court
properly concluded the relief Tadlock sought was not available
by way of mandamus.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral
3
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4