Court Opinion

ID: 4266088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-04-20 16:00:23.320076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:21.207435
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-1118

In re: KENNETH ROSHAUN REID,

                    Petitioner.

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

Submitted: April 17, 2018                                         Decided: April 20, 2018

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

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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

this court directing dismissal of certain of his convictions, correction of certain errors by

the district court and probation officer, and his immediate release from imprisonment.

We conclude that Reid 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 First Fed. Sav. &

Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). 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,

although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus, the amended petition for a writ of mandamus, and the supplemental petitions

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.

                                                                      PETITIONS DENIED

                                             2