Case Name: In Re: William Terrence CROSS, a/k/a Red, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-18
Citations: 407 F. App'x 696
Docket Number: No. 10-1960
Parties: In Re: William Terrence CROSS, a/k/a Red, Petitioner.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 407
Pages: 696–696

Head Matter:
In Re: William Terrence CROSS, a/k/a Red, Petitioner.
No. 10-1960.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.
Decided: Jan. 18, 2011.
William Terrence Cross, Petitioner Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Terrence Cross petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to reverse his conviction and alleged illegal sentence. We conclude that Cross 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 Cross 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 and deny Cross's motion to remand for resentencing. 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.