Court Opinion

ID: 9380458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-18 21:00:15.412677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:25.034151
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2286      Doc: 15         Filed: 03/17/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2286

        In re: KENNETH ROSHAUN REID,

                            Petitioner.

                      On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1)

        Submitted: January 31, 2023                                       Decided: March 17, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Petitioner Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia,
        South Carolina, for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2286      Doc: 15         Filed: 03/17/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kenneth Roshaun Reid petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this

        court directing the district court to correct his sentencing calculations under the Fair

        Sentencing Act of 2010 and hold a hearing resentencing him on his conviction for

        conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine, in

        violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, or—if the jury found no drug quantity elements—to dismiss

        this conviction and his conviction for murder through use of a firearm in the course of a

        drug trafficking crime and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(j)(1).

        We conclude that Reid 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 (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 sought by Reid is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we

        deny the petition for a 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