Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01084/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01084-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stanley Lorenzo Williams
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1084

In Re: STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:03-cv-00299-TDS-WWD)

Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: July 21, 2010

Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-1084 Doc: 39 Filed: 07/21/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Lorenzo Williams petitions for a writ of 

mandamus challenging the criminal judgments in two state cases 

and seeking immediate release from prison or vacatur of the 

judgments. We conclude that Williams is 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). Additionally, 

mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re 

Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), and is 

not available if the petitioner has other adequate means to seek 

the desired relief. In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 

2001). 

The relief sought by Williams is not available by way 

of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of 

mandamus. We deny as moot Williams’ motions to expedite and 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

Appeal: 10-1084 Doc: 39 Filed: 07/21/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 10-1084 Doc: 39 Filed: 07/21/2010 Pg: 3 of 3