Case Name: In re Rigoberto HERNANDEZ-PORTILLO, a/k/a Tiny, a/k/a Carlos Antonio Martinez, a/k/a Rigoberto H. Portillo, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-20
Citations: 585 F. App'x 195
Docket Number: No. 14-1466
Parties: In re Rigoberto HERNANDEZ-PORTILLO, a/k/a Tiny, a/k/a Carlos Antonio Martinez, a/k/a Rigoberto H. Portillo, Petitioner.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 195–196

Head Matter:
In re Rigoberto HERNANDEZ-PORTILLO, a/k/a Tiny, a/k/a Carlos Antonio Martinez, a/k/a Rigoberto H. Portillo, Petitioner.
No. 14-1466.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2014.
Decided: Nov. 20, 2014.
Rigoberto Hernandez-Portillo, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rigoberto Hernandez-Portillo petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order granting him inter alia relief in his criminal proceeding. We conclude that Hernandez-Portillo 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). Moreover, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.2007).
The relief sought by Hernandez-Portillo 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.