Case ID: f-appx_5/html/0250-01.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 Garry COPELAND, Petitioner.
    No. 00-7444.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 31, 2001.
    Decided March 8, 2001.
    Garry Copeland, Petitioner pro se.
    Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Garry Copeland has filed this mandamus petition apparently seeking to bring an Apprendi claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). Where there is another available remedy, mandamus relief is not appropriate. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). In this case, Copeland has another available remedy, namely to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the district court. Therefore, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny mandamus relief. 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. 
      
      
        Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).