UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-554
In Re: STEPHEN MICHAEL O'KANE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-145)
Submitted: June 13, 1996 Decided: June 27, 1996
Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Michael O'Kane, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Michael O'Kane petitions this court for an extraordi-
nary writ or a writ of mandamus. O'Kane, a federal prison inmate,
is preparing to challenge his guilty plea to bank fraud, in vio-
lation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1344 (West Supp. 1996). He asserts that,
because of amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), he must file his
§ 2255 motion by June 27, 1996. But O'Kane alleges that he must
have certain documents from the district court and the government
before he can file his motion.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for N. Dist., 426
U.S. 394, 402 (1976). The writ is not available as a substitute for
an appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.
1979). Petitioner bears the heavy burden of showing that he has no
other means of obtaining relief and that his right to such relief
is clear and indisputable. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860
F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
We conclude that O'Kane has not borne this burden. As there is
no 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion pending, 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1988) does
not entitle him to a free transcript at government expense. See
United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321-22 (1976). The dis-
trict court will examine the files and records of the case when the
motion is filed. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Rule 4(b), Rules Governing
§ 2255 Proceedings. O'Kane is not required to set forth his claims
in great detail in filing the § 2255 motion. Rule 2(b), Rules
Governing § 2255 Motions. We do not have authority under 28 U.S.C.
2
§ 1651 (1988) to direct O'Kane's defense counsel to provide him
with counsel's records. See Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg
County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969).
Therefore, while we grant O'Kane leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we deny his motion for mandamus or other extraordinary
writ. 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