Case Name: In re George: JEFFERSON, III, a/k/a Ace, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-18
Citations: 499 F. App'x 328
Docket Number: No. 12-2349
Parties: In re George: JEFFERSON, III, a/k/a Ace, Petitioner.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 499
Pages: 328–328

Head Matter:
In re George: JEFFERSON, III, a/k/a Ace, Petitioner.
No. 12-2349.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.
Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.
George Jefferson, III, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George Jefferson, III petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to address whether it had jurisdiction to sentence him as a career offender. We conclude that Jefferson 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). 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 Jefferson 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.