Case Name: In re Phil Jemar GRAHAM, a/k/a Touche, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-23
Citations: 576 F. App'x 204
Docket Number: No. 14-1366
Parties: In re Phil Jemar GRAHAM, a/k/a Touche, Petitioner.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 576
Pages: 204–204

Head Matter:
In re Phil Jemar GRAHAM, a/k/a Touche, Petitioner.
No. 14-1366.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 19, 2014.
Decided: June 23, 2014.
Phil Jemar Graham, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Phil Jemar Graham petitions for a writ of mandamus challenging his career offender sentence and seeking relief from this Court. We conclude that Graham 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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (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).
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.2007), and the relief sought by Graham is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.