Court Opinion

ID: 9391102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 21:00:35.947251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.413985
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1170      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1170

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

                            Petitioner.

                                              No. 23-1173

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

                            Petitioner.

        On Petitions 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; 5:22-cv-00305-FL)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                         Decided: April 28, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Brandon Marquis Jennings, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1170      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

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

        disqualifying the district judge and appointing counsel in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding.

        He also contends that the district court erred in denying him bail. 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. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795.

        Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503

        F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

               Jennings has not established a basis to disqualify the district judge, and the other

        relief he seeks is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny his petitions.

        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.

                                                                              PETITIONS DENIED

                                                       2