Court Opinion

ID: 4911931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-17 19:05:19.624394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:21.962190
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-1824

In re: XAVIER MILTON EARQUHART, a/k/a Xavier Smart, a/k/a Xavier Akpan
Smart, a/k/a Xzavier Erquhart, a/k/a Xzayvier Ernhart, a/k/a David Imrich, a/k/a
Kevin Liols, a/k/a Michael Powell, a/k/a Melvin Hailstones, a/k/a Rety Humos,
a/k/a Milton Monn,

                    Petitioner.

               On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:17-cr-00134-BR-1)

Submitted: September 14, 2021                               Decided: September 17, 2021

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Xavier Milton Earquhart, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Xavier Milton Earquhart petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing

the district court to dismiss the superseding indictment, vacate his convictions, and return

seized property to him. We conclude that Earquhart 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). Finally, 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 sought by Earquhart 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

                                             2