Court Opinion

ID: 9956795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:00:56.882057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:55.656629
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2274      Doc: 6         Filed: 04/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2274

        In re: WILLIAM KEVIN GLOVER,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Prohibition to the United States District Court for the Northern
        District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. (1:22-cr-00066-TSK-MJA-1)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                           Decided: April 1, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        William Kevin Glover, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2274       Doc: 6         Filed: 04/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               William Kevin Glover petitions for a writ of prohibition, asking this court to prohibit

        the district court from exercising jurisdiction over his criminal charges and ordering the

        court to show cause why he should not be immediately released. We conclude that Glover

        is not entitled to the relief he seeks. “[A] writ of prohibition is a drastic and extraordinary

        remedy which should be granted only when the petitioner has shown [that] his right to the

        writ [is] clear and undisputable[,] . . . that the actions of the court were a clear abuse of

        discretion,” In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983), and that he has “no other

        adequate means to attain the desired relief,” In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 921 F.2d 1310, 1314

        (3d Cir. 1990) (cleaned up). A writ of prohibition may not be used as a substitute for

        appeal. In re Vargas, 723 F.2d at 1468; see United States v. Foster, 296 F.2d 249, 251 (4th

        Cir. 1961). The relief sought by Glover is not available by way of a writ of prohibition.

        Accordingly, we deny Glover’s petition. 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