Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-02302/USCOURTS-ca4-09-02302-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William D. Morris
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2302

In Re: WILLIAM D. MORRIS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (0:05-cr-00056-MBS-1)

Submitted: March 29, 2010 Decided: April 15, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William D. Morris, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-2302 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/15/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

William D. Morris, convicted and sentenced to eightyfour months in prison in the District Court for the Southern 

District of Georgia after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea 

agreement to one count each of wire, mail and bank fraud, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343-44 (2000), has petitioned 

this court for a writ of mandamus. In his petition, Morris 

asks, among other things, that this court direct the Government 

to file a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion for sentence reduction on 

his behalf. 

To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show 

that:

(1) he has a clear and indisputable right to the 

relief sought; (2) the responding party has a clear 

duty to do the specific act requested; (3) the act 

requested is an official act or duty; (4) there are no 

other adequate means to attain the relief he desires; 

and (5) the issuance of the writ will effect right and 

justice in the circumstances.

In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). We have considered 

Morris’s petition and find that he is not entitled to mandamus

relief. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

Appeal: 09-2302 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/15/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 09-2302 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/15/2010 Pg: 3 of 3