Case Name: In Re: Clair LOVERIDGE, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-24
Citations: 319 F. App'x 240
Docket Number: No. 09-1046
Parties: In Re: Clair LOVERIDGE, Petitioner.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 319
Pages: 240–240

Head Matter:
In Re: Clair LOVERIDGE, Petitioner.
No. 09-1046.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2009.
Decided: March 24, 2009.
Clair Loveridge, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clair Loveridge petitions for a writ of mandamus asking this court to review alleged sentencing errors by the district court. We conclude that Loveridge is not entitled to mandamus relief.
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). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979).
The relief sought by Loveridge is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.