Court Opinion

ID: 9905159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 21:01:54.942856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:16.827879
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1973      Doc: 10            Filed: 11/27/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                               UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 23-1973

        In re: ARTHUR F. JONES, a/k/a Arthur Palmer, a/k/a June, a/k/a Junior,

                             Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
        South Carolina, at Charleston. (2:99-cr-00362-DCN-1)

        Submitted: November 21, 2023                                 Decided: November 27, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Arthur F. Jones, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1973      Doc: 10         Filed: 11/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Arthur F. Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the

        district judge to vacate Jones’ criminal conviction for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

        We conclude that Jones 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).

               The relief sought by Jones is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we

        deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We deny Jones’ motion to expedite as moot. 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