Court Opinion

ID: 9411523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 21:01:22.457579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.121776
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1327      Doc: 14         Filed: 07/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                               UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-1327

        In re: TRAVANTI ROBERTS,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
        South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:04-cr-00370-
        TLW-1)

        Submitted: July 20, 2023                                          Decided: July 25, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Travanti Roberts, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1327       Doc: 14          Filed: 07/25/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Travanti Roberts petitions for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court has

        unduly delayed in ruling on his motion for compassionate release. Roberts seeks an order

        from this court directing the district court to act.

               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). Mandamus relief is available only when there are

        no other means by which the relief sought could be granted and when the petitioner

        “show[s] that his right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable.” United States v.

        Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 517 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and brackets

        omitted); see Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81. Unreasonable delay in the district court may be

        cause for mandamus relief. In re United States ex rel. Drummond, 886 F.3d 448, 450 (5th

        Cir. 2018) (collecting cases); cf. Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 437 U.S. 655, 661-62 (1978)

        (“There can be no doubt that, where a district court persistently and without reason refuses

        to adjudicate a case properly before it, the court of appeals may issue the writ.”).

               We conclude that the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court

        so as to render any delay unreasonable. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. ∗

        We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

               ∗
                 Notwithstanding our disposition on the current mandamus petition, we encourage
        the district court to act as expeditiously as possible in this matter.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1327     Doc: 14        Filed: 07/25/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

        presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                          PETITION DENIED

                                                  3