UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7775
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
JULIAN MATTHEW THORNTON,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:03-hc-00194-BR)
Submitted: September 4, 2009 Decided: October 14, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julian Matthew Thornton, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Huband,
BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Julian Matthew Thornton appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion to transfer venue and the district
court’s subsequent order continuing his commitment pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006). Finding no error, we affirm.
First, venue is proper in the Eastern District of
North Carolina where Thornton was originally committed. See 18
U.S.C. § 4247(h) (2008). Therefore, the district court did not
err in denying Thornton’s motion to transfer venue. Second, we
find no error in Thornton’s continued commitment. Following an
evidentiary hearing, the district court entered an order finding
by clear and convincing evidence that Thornton, who was
originally committed to the Attorney General’s custody in 2003,
continued to suffer from a mental disease or defect as a result
of which his unconditional release would create a substantial
risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the
property of another. 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s orders. United States v. Thornton, No. 5:03-
hc-00194-BR (E.D.N.C. July 30, 2008; Aug. 4, 2008).
Thornton also petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order recusing the district court judge. We conclude that
Thornton is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is
available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the
2
relief sought. 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). Mandamus may not be
used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595
F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). Thornton offers no showing of
bias or impartiality of the district court. Moreover, because
Thornton is able to seek relief through his direct appeal,
mandamus relief is not available. Therefore, we deny Thornton’s
mandamus petition.
We further deny Thornton’s motions to transfer venue,
to recuse, and to expand the record on appeal. 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.
AFFIRMED
3