Case ID: f-appx_392/html/0223-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Henry Earl MILLER, Petitioner.
    No. 10-1127.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 19, 2010.
    Decided: Aug. 26, 2010.
    Henry Earl Miller, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Henry Earl Miller petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking modification of the transcript of his sentencing proceeding. We conclude that Miller is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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).

The relief sought by Miller is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We deny Miller’s pending motions. 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.