Court Opinion

ID: 9401143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 21:00:39.030855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.370151
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1848      Doc: 15         Filed: 06/09/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1848

        In re: KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS, a/k/a Shorty,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Southern
        District of West Virginia, at Huntington. (3:00-cv-00647; 3:98-cr-00047-1)

        Submitted: September 22, 2022                                        Decided: June 9, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior
        Circuit Judge.

        Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kelvin Andre Spotts, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1848      Doc: 15          Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               In his original mandamus petition and first supplemental mandamus petition, Kelvin

        Andre Spotts alleges that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for a

        sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132

        Stat. 5194, 5222, and on his emergency motion for immediate release. He seeks an order

        from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket

        reveals that the district court has granted this motion in part, along with his motion for

        compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, because the district

        court has recently decided Spotts’ motions, we deny his original and first supplemental

        mandamus petitions as moot.

               In his second supplemental mandamus petition, Spotts seeks an order from this

        Court compelling the district court to amend its judgment. Mandamus is a drastic remedy

        to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367,

        380 (2004); In re Moore, 955 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir. 2020). Mandamus relief is available

        only when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted and the

        petitioner demonstrates “that he has a clear and indisputable right to that relief.” In re

        Moore, 955 F.3d at 388 (internal quotation marks omitted). Mandamus may not be used

        as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

        Because the relief sought by Spotts is not available by way of mandamus, we deny his

        second supplemental mandamus petition.         We also deny his motion to expedite the

        decision.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1848         Doc: 15    Filed: 06/09/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

              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

                                                  3