Case ID: f-appx_370/html/0362-01.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. 10-1067.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 16, 2010.
    Decided: March 17, 2010.
    Henry Earl Miller, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Henry Earl Miller is serving a 300-month sentence following his guilty plea to armed robbery, using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, and aiding and abetting these offenses. Miller petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order vacating his sentence and remanding to the district court for resentencing in light of Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances, when “the petitioner has no other adequate means to obtain relief to which there is a clear and indisputable right.” In re Blackwater Sec. Consulting, L.L.C., 460 F.3d 576, 592 (4th Cir.2006) (internal quotations and citation omitted). “Courts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987).

The relief sought by Miller is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny his motion for leave to proceed on direct appeal or by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. 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.