Court Opinion

ID: 9911437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 21:00:50.443657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:30.892228
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2075      Doc: 10         Filed: 12/18/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2075

        In re: MARTINEZ ORLANDIS BLACK,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western
        District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. (3:06-cr-00364-RJC-1)

        Submitted: December 14, 2023                                Decided: December 18, 2023

        Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Martinez Orlandis Black, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2075         Doc: 10        Filed: 12/18/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        ER CURIAM:

                  Martinez Orlandis Black petitions for a writ of mandamus asking this court to alter

        his federal sentence to time-served. We conclude that Black 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). 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). Further, 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 that Black seeks is not available by way of mandamus, and

        he otherwise fails to establish a clear right to the relief he seeks.

                  We therefore deny the mandamus petition. 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