Court Opinion

ID: 9929743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 21:00:58.71639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:36:33.483369
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2139      Doc: 8         Filed: 02/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2139

        In re: BRANDON MARQUIS JENNINGS, a/k/a Smilez, a/k/a Smilez Finesse,
        a/k/a Breezy, a/k/a Mustafa Bey,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
        District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:18-cr-00318-FL-1)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 2, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Brandon Marquis Jennings, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2139      Doc: 8        Filed: 02/02/2024    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Brandon Marquis Jennings petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order

        compelling the district court to direct the Government to respond to a memorandum that

        Jennings filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. We conclude that Jennings 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).

              Jennings has not established a clear right to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, 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

                                                   2