Case Name: In re Tariq Liyuen Adevemi BELT, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-26
Citations: 491 F. App'x 391
Docket Number: No. 12-1815
Parties: In re Tariq Liyuen Adevemi BELT, Petitioner.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 491
Pages: 391–392

Head Matter:
In re Tariq Liyuen Adevemi BELT, Petitioner.
No. 12-1815.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 20, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 26, 2012.
Tariq Liyuen Adevemi Belt, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tariq Liyuen Adevemi Belt petitions for a writ of mandamus complaining of various wrongs committed by the district court and his former attorney in his criminal case and his post-conviction proceedings. He requests $19 million in compensation and that his petition and all documents and opinions relating to his cases be sealed and not released to the public through the internet or otherwise. We conclude that Belt 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Carp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.2007). Additionally, 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).
The relief sought by Belt is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his motion to seal documents and 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.