Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01062/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01062-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Lamont Hairston
Petitioner
Peter Lamont Smith
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1062

In Re: CHARLES LAMONT HAIRSTON; PETER LAMONT SMITH,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(1:06-cr-00307-NCT-1; 1:08-cr-00146-NCT-1)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Lamont Hairston, Peter Lamont Smith, Petitioners Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-1062 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/07/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Lamont Hairston and Peter Lamont Smith 

petition for a writ of mandamus seeking their immediate release 

from incarceration pending disposition of their intended Qui Tam 

action, an expedited decision in their intended Qui Tam action, 

and orders of acquittal in all cases prosecuted by David Folmar 

on behalf of the United States Attorney’s Office, and 

accountability by the United States Attorney’s Office for 

allowing Folmar to continue to work there after his license was 

suspended. We conclude that Hairston and Smith are 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 (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 Hairston and Smith is not 

available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for 

writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 10-1062 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/07/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 10-1062 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/07/2010 Pg: 3 of 3