UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2020
In re: HARRISON LEWIS, III,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:17-cr-00323-GJH-1)
Submitted: January 23, 2019 Decided: February 20, 2019
Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harrison Lewis, III, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Harrison Lewis, III, petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking this court to compel
the district court to take certain actions in his criminal case. At the time that he filed the
petition, he had been convicted by a jury and was awaiting sentencing. He has since been
sentenced and has a direct appeal pending. See United States v. Lewis, No. 18-4729.
“[M]andamus is a drastic remedy that must be reserved for extraordinary
situations.” In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). “Courts provide mandamus relief only when (1)
petitioner ‘ha[s] no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires’; (2) petitioner
has shown a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to the requested relief; and (3) the court deems
the writ ‘appropriate under the circumstances.’” Id. (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court,
542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)). The writ of mandamus is not a substitute for appeal in
derogation of policies favoring review upon final judgment. Will v. United States, 389
U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
We conclude that Lewis fails to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief.
Accordingly, although we grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his
other pending motion and his 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
2