Court Opinion

ID: 9408855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 21:00:39.945057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:47.293057
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1409      Doc: 9         Filed: 07/12/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1409

        In re: CARISSA EUGENIA BROWN,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western
        District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. (3:20-cr-00415-MOC-WCM-1)

        Submitted: June 9, 2023                                             Decided: July 12, 2023

        Before DIAZ. Chief Judge, RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Carissa Eugenia Brown, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1409      Doc: 9        Filed: 07/12/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Carissa Eugenia Brown pled guilty to wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343,

        and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. She is currently awaiting

        sentencing. After determining that Brown violated the terms of her pretrial release, the

        magistrate judge revoked her bond and ordered her detained pending sentencing. * Brown

        now petitions for a writ of mandamus, requesting that this Court order her immediate

        release. We conclude that Brown 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 [she] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (cleaned up). 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 Brown seeks is not available by way of mandamus. 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

              *
                This Court previously dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Brown’s appeal of the
        magistrate judge’s order.

                                                   2