In re: Richard Boggs ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1652 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1652
In re: RICHARD E. BOGGS
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. (3:22-cr-00221-CMC-1)
Submitted: June 27, 2023 Decided: June 29, 2023
Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard E. Boggs, Petitioner Pro Se. John C. Potterfield, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1652 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Richard E. Boggs petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order voiding his
conviction and dismissing his criminal proceeding. He has also moved to stay his
sentencing pending our decision. We conclude that Boggs 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 Boggs is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we
deny the petition for writ of mandamus and deny Boggs’ motion to stay. 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.
PETITION DENIED
2