Case Name: In Re Lenise SYKES, a/k/a Lenise Hawkins, a/k/a Lenise Givens, a/k/a Zina Swinton, a/k/a Lita L. Skinner, a/k/a Lenise M. Skinner, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-10-21
Citations: 48 F. App'x 882
Docket Number: No. 02-7284
Parties: In Re Lenise SYKES, a/k/a Lenise Hawkins, a/k/a Lenise Givens, a/k/a Zina Swinton, a/k/a Lita L. Skinner, a/k/a Lenise M. Skinner, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 48
Pages: 882–883

Head Matter:
In Re Lenise SYKES, a/k/a Lenise Hawkins, a/k/a Lenise Givens, a/k/a Zina Swinton, a/k/a Lita L. Skinner, a/k/a Lenise M. Skinner, Petitioner.
No. 02-7284.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 10, 2002.
Decided Oct. 21, 2002.
Lenise Sykes, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Lenise Sykes has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that this court order her release from custody based on her claim that one of the United States Attorneys involved in her criminal prosecution did not possess a valid license to practice law. "The granting of a writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances." In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir.1987). A petitioner must show that she has a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent has a clear duty to perform the act requested by petitioner, and that there is no other adequate remedy available. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135,138 (4th Cir.1988).
We find that Sykes has failed to make the requisite showing of extraordinary circumstances justifying mandamus relief be cause she cannot show that there is no other adequate remedy available. Sykes may raise this issue in a direct appeal of her criminal conviction. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979) (holding that mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal). Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.