Case Name: In re Quintine Earl WHITEHEAD, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-27
Citations: 3 F. App'x 189
Docket Number: No. 00-901
Parties: In re Quintine Earl WHITEHEAD, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges., and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 3
Pages: 189–190

Head Matter:
In re Quintine Earl WHITEHEAD, Petitioner.
No. 00-901.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 22, 2001.
Decided Feb. 27, 2001.
Quintine Earl Whitehead, petitioner pro se.
Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges., and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Quintine Earl Whitehead filed this petition for a writ of prohibition asking this court to enjoin the U.S. Government from continuing to exercise jurisdiction over his federal criminal conviction on the basis that the Government lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Whitehead. A writ of prohibition is a drastic remedy which should be granted only when the petitioner's right to the requested relief is undisputable. In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir.1983); In re Missouri, 664 F.2d 178, 180 (8th Cir .1981). A writ of prohibition should be granted only when the petitioner has no other adequate means of relief, In re Bankers Trust Co., 775 F.2d 545, 547 (3d Cir.1985), and may not be used as a substitute for the normal appellate process. In re Missouri, 664 F.2d at 180.
Whitehead has failed to establish his right to such relief. Accordingly, we deny Whitehead's petition for a writ of prohibition. 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.