UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1963
In Re: CHARLES D. IZAC,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis and Writ of Mandamus.
(3:02-cr-00058-JPB-JES-1; 3:16-cv-00099-JPB-JES)
Submitted: December 9, 2016 Decided: December 21, 2016
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles D. Izac, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles D. Izac petitions for a writ of error coram nobis and
writ of mandamus seeking an order directing his immediate release
from incarceration. We conclude that Izac is not entitled to coram
nobis relief or mandamus relief.
To obtain coram nobis relief, the petitioner must show that
a more usual remedy is unavailable; there is a “valid basis” for
not having challenged his conviction earlier; “the consequences
flowing to the petitioner from his convictions [are] sufficiently
adverse to satisfy Article III’s case or controversy requirement;”
and “the error . . . must be of the most fundamental character.”
Bereano v. United States, 706 F.3d 568, 576 (4th Cir. 2013)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should 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). 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).
Izac’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion challenging his
conviction and sentence is pending in the district court.
Therefore, the relief sought by Izac is not available by way of
coram nobis or mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to
2
proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of error
coram nobis and writ of mandamus. Additionally, we deny Izac’s
motions for relief from judgment, for summary disposition, and for
consideration of his petition by the en banc court. 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