Court Opinion

ID: 9411788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 21:00:53.012925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:13.542225
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1368      Doc: 16         Filed: 07/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1368

        In re: LEANTHONY WINSTON, a/k/a Locks, a/k/a Lee Lee,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
        District of Virginia, at Norfolk. (2:20-cr-00108-RGD-DEM-1)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                          Decided: July 26, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        LeAnthony T. Winston, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1368      Doc: 16        Filed: 07/26/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

              LeAnthony Winston petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order vacating the

        district court’s judgment in Winston’s criminal case. We conclude that Winston 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).

              Winston has appealed his criminal convictions and sentence, and his appeal is

        currently pending before this court. See United States v. Winston, No. 22-4164 (4th Cir.

        docketed Mar. 17, 2022). As mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re

        Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), Winston has failed to

        demonstrate that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Further, while mandamus may be used

        to seek recusal of a district judge, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987),

        Winston’s conclusory assertions of bias are insufficient to warrant recusal, see Belue v.

        Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-73 (4th Cir. 2011).

              Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and deny Winston’s

        motion for judicial notice. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

                                                   2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1368      Doc: 16        Filed: 07/26/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                                             PETITION DENIED

                                                    3