Court Opinion

ID: 4442878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-09-30 19:00:20.626169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:01.084204
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 19-1467

In re: DAVID LEE SMITH,

                    Petitioner.

                  On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:18-ct-3209-D)

Submitted: September 26, 2019                               Decided: September 30, 2019

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

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the

district court to invalidate his state conviction or reduce his state sentence and direct the

state custodian to release him. We conclude that Smith is not entitled to mandamus relief.

       Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary

circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re Murphy-Brown, LLC,

907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018).

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

503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus

relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cty., 411 F.2d 586,

587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, Dist.

of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).

       The relief sought by Smith 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