UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1252
In re: CURTIS WATSON, a/k/a Low,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:18-cr-00279-1)
Submitted: June 29, 2021 Decided: July 1, 2021
Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Watson, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Watson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the
district court to conduct a hearing and release him pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3164(b). We
conclude that Watson is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,
LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when
the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to
attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re
Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
In the district court, Watson filed a pro se 18 U.S.C. § 3164(b) motion for release
on bail making the same argument as he does in his present petition. The district court
denied his motion because he was represented by counsel. Because Watson’s petition
functionally seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for release on bail,
the relief sought by Watson is not available by way of mandamus. See In re Lockheed
Martin Corp., 503 F.3d at 353. Accordingly, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
2