Case Name: In re Thomas Creighton SHRADER, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-04
Citations: 547 F. App'x 299
Docket Number: No. 13-1999
Parties: In re Thomas Creighton SHRADER, Petitioner.
Judges: Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 547
Pages: 299–299

Head Matter:
In re Thomas Creighton SHRADER, Petitioner.
No. 13-1999.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 26, 2013.
Decided: Dec. 4, 2013.
Thomas Creighton Shrader, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Creighton Shrader petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to arrest judgment. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 34. We conclude that Shrader is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. 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 Shrader is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 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.