UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1620
In Re: ALBERT NEWTON COOMBS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:99-cr-00069-NCT-5)
Submitted: January 22, 2010 Decided: March 4, 2010
Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Newton Coombs, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Albert Newton Coombs petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his
motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2006). He seeks an order from this court directing the
district court to act.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in
extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d
509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). “Courts are extremely reluctant to
grant a writ of mandamus.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th
Cir. 1987). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show
that:
(1) he has a clear and indisputable right to the
relief sought; (2) the responding party has a clear
duty to do the specific act requested; (3) the act
requested is an official act or duty; (4) there are no
other adequate means to attain the relief he desires;
and (5) the issuance of the writ will effect right and
justice in the circumstances.
In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
We have considered Coombs’ petition and find that he
does not meet the exacting requirements necessary for the
issuance of a writ of mandamus. The District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina has developed an
administrative procedure governing consideration of all
2
§ 3582(c)(2) motions filed in the district. These motions have
been sorted and prioritized according to the potential release
date should the relief sought be granted. As Coombs’ potential
release date has been calculated by the district court to be
October 2016, Coombs is not prejudiced by the delay in the
disposition of his motion.
Accordingly, we deny Coombs’ petition for writ of
mandamus, without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus
petition should the consideration of his motion extend
materially beyond six months following issuance of this opinion.
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.
PETITION DENIED
3