Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-01620/USCOURTS-ca4-09-01620-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albert Newton Coombs
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1620

In Re: ALBERT NEWTON COOMBS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(1:99-cr-00069-NCT-5)

Submitted: January 22, 2010 Decided: March 4, 2010

Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Newton Coombs, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-1620 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/04/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Albert Newton Coombs petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 

motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

(2006). He seeks an order from this court directing the 

district court to act.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in 

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 

509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). “Courts are extremely reluctant to 

grant a writ of mandamus.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th 

Cir. 1987). 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 omitted).

We have considered Coombs’ petition and find that he

does not meet the exacting requirements necessary for the 

issuance of a writ of mandamus. The District Court for the

Middle District of North Carolina has developed an 

administrative procedure governing consideration of all 

Appeal: 09-1620 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/04/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

§ 3582(c)(2) motions filed in the district. These motions have 

been sorted and prioritized according to the potential release 

date should the relief sought be granted. As Coombs’ potential 

release date has been calculated by the district court to be 

October 2016, Coombs is not prejudiced by the delay in the 

disposition of his motion.

Accordingly, we deny Coombs’ petition for writ of 

mandamus, without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus 

petition should the consideration of his motion extend 

materially beyond six months following issuance of this opinion.

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

Appeal: 09-1620 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/04/2010 Pg: 3 of 3