Court Opinion

ID: 1012197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:40:39.71068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:07.737610
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-7288

In Re: PABLO EUGENIO SINISTERRA,

                                                         Petitioner.

         On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.     (CR-94-642)

Submitted:   December 11, 2003        Decided:     December 22, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pablo Eugenio Sinisterra, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Pablo Eugenio Sinisterra petitions for a writ of mandamus. He

seeks an order requiring the district court to produce a transcript

of his arraignment.

     Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a

clear right to the relief sought.       See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).        Further, mandamus is a

drastic   remedy    and   should   only    be   used   in    extraordinary

circumstances.     See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S.

394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.             See In re

United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

     The relief sought by Sinisterra 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 the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                            PETITION DENIED

                                    2