UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1700
In Re: WILLIAM C. BOND,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(No. 1:14-cr-00186)
Submitted: October 30, 2015 Decided: November 5, 2015
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William C. Bond, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William C. Bond petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking
an order from this court directing the district court to make
its docket “whole” and properly captioned or titled, to produce
an order terminating an attorney from criminal proceedings, and
to unseal attorney termination matters. Bond also requests that
this court “provide a framework for future district courts to
determine how they should go about such matters, including a
step-by-step procedure which would include separating [attorney]
‘disqualification’ matters from ‘inquiry’ matters.” He further
requests that this court remand matters to the district court
for “further consideration” and adopt certain protocols
governing “conflict of interest” and attorney “disqualification”
hearings. We conclude that Bond is not entitled to mandamus
relief.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in
extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S.
394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516
17 (4th Cir. 2003). Mandamus relief is available only when
there are no other means by which the relief sought could be
granted, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may
not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin
Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The party seeking
mandamus relief bears the heavy burden of showing that his
2
entitlement to relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem.
Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).
We conclude after review of the mandamus petition that Bond
has not established a clear and indisputable entitlement to the
relief he seeks. Accordingly, although we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of
mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3