Court Opinion

ID: 9406520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 21:01:27.65954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:31.269573
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1652      Doc: 10         Filed: 06/29/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1652

        In re: RICHARD E. BOGGS

                     Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
        South Carolina, at Columbia. (3:22-cr-00221-CMC-1)

        Submitted: June 27, 2023                                          Decided: June 29, 2023

        Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Richard E. Boggs, Petitioner Pro Se. John C. Potterfield, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
        Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1652        Doc: 10        Filed: 06/29/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

                  Richard E. Boggs petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order voiding his

        conviction and dismissing his criminal proceeding.       He has also moved to stay his

        sentencing pending our decision. We conclude that Boggs is not entitled to mandamus

        relief.

                  Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary

        circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,

        LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when

        the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to

        attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal

        quotation marks omitted). 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 Boggs is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we

        deny the petition for writ of mandamus and deny Boggs’ motion to stay. 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

                                                     2