Case Name: IN RE: Angelo GALLOWAY, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-04
Citations: 669 F. App'x 156
Docket Number: No. 16-7066
Parties: IN RE: Angelo GALLOWAY, Petitioner.
Judges: Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 156–157

Head Matter:
IN RE: Angelo GALLOWAY, Petitioner.
No. 16-7066
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 29, 2016
Decided: October 4, 2016
Angelo Galloway, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Angelo Galloway petitions for writs of mandamus seeking orders directing the district court to hold a bond hearing, to grant him reasonable bail, and to rule on his complaint under Fed. R. App. P. 46. We conclude that Galloway 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 136, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
Galloway's petitions rely on factual and legal premises that have been rejected on numerous occasions in both the district court and this court. Galloway may not use mandamus to relitigate these challenges to his criminal conviction and sentence or as a substitute for appeal. See In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, Galloway fails to demonstrate a clear right to the relief he seeks.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petitions for writs of mandamus. We deny as moot Galloway's motion to expedite decision. 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.
PETITIONS DENIED