In Re: Loveridge v. , 319 F. App'x 240 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1046
In Re: CLAIR LOVERIDGE,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:03-cr-00063-IMK; 1:06-cv-00006-IMK)
Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 24, 2009
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clair Loveridge, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clair Loveridge petitions for a writ of mandamus
asking this court to review alleged sentencing errors by the
district court. We conclude that Loveridge is not entitled to
mandamus relief.
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). Further,
mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in
extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th
Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for
appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.
1979).
The relief sought by Loveridge is not available by way
of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of
mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
2