Case Name: In re William Timothy KEMPH, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-04
Citations: 522 F. App'x 198
Docket Number: No. 13-1539
Parties: In re William Timothy KEMPH, Petitioner.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 522
Pages: 198–198

Head Matter:
In re William Timothy KEMPH, Petitioner.
No. 13-1539.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 30, 2013.
Decided: June 4, 2013.
William Timothy Kemph, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Timothy Kemph petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court to vacate his 2008 conviction and sentence. We conclude that Kemph is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. 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). The relief sought by Kemph 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.