Court Opinion

ID: 9555416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 21:00:41.976034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:15.977289
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1624      Doc: 13         Filed: 08/10/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1624

        In re: KENNETH ROSHAUN REID,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
        South Carolina, at Rock Hill. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1)

        Submitted: July 17, 2023                                          Decided: August 10, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, 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        Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1624        Doc: 13         Filed: 08/10/2023    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 issue a ruling on his motions vacated in a prior appeal

        and ordering his release from custody. 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 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