Court Opinion

ID: 9386575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 21:00:27.15339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:07.382800
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2179      Doc: 11          Filed: 04/11/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-2179

        In re: SONYA SKINNER,

                            Petitioner.

        On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
        District of Virginia, at Norfolk. (2:16-cr-00017-RCY-LRL-1)

        Submitted: March 10, 2023                                         Decided: April 11, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Sonya Skinner, Petitioner Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2179         Doc: 11     Filed: 04/11/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Sonya Skinner has filed two substantially similar petitions for a writ of mandamus

        seeking an order correcting her sentence. We conclude that Skinner 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 (alteration and 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).

              The relief sought by Skinner is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly,

        we deny the petitions for writ of mandamus and deny Skinner’s motion for release pending

        a decision. 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