United States v. Eric Byers , 546 F. App'x 325 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7340
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC MARIO BYERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:02-cr-00077-RBS-1)
Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 22, 2013
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Mario Byers, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Evan DePadilla,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Mario Byers appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for transcripts at Government expense. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Byers, No. 2:02-cr-00077-RBS-1 (E.D.
Va. Aug. 9, 2013).
Byers also petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an
order directing the district court to respond to his pretrial
motions filed back in 2003. We conclude that Byers is not
entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States
Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.
Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further,
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). Because this issue
was addressed on direct appeal, see United States v. Byers, No.
03-4426, 2004 WL 1209015 (4th Cir. June 3, 2004) (unpublished),
Byers does not have a clear right to the relief sought.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order,
deny Byers’ petition for a writ of mandamus and deny his motion
for transcripts at Government expense. We dispense with oral
2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3