UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1847
In re: SHAMONTE LAMONT WALL,
Petitioner.
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.
(1:05-cr-00096-1)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 1, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shamonte Lamont Wall, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shamonte Lamont Wall petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order directing the district court to vacate and
dismiss his criminal convictions. We conclude that Wall is not
entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should 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). Further,
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). Mandamus may not be
used as a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,
503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), and is not available if the
petitioner has other adequate means to seek the desired relief.
In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001).
The relief sought by Wall is not available by way of
mandamus. 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 adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2