In re: Brandon Jennings ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 23-1170      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 23-1170
    In re: BRANDON MARQUIS JENNINGS, a/k/a Smilez, a/k/a Smilez Finesse,
    a/k/a Beezy, a/k/a Mustafa Bey,
    Petitioner.
    No. 23-1173
    In re: BRANDON MARQUIS JENNINGS, a/k/a Smilez, a/k/a Smilez Finesse,
    a/k/a Beezy, a/k/a Mustafa Bey,
    Petitioner.
    On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:18-cr-00318-FL-1; 5:22-cv-00305-FL)
    Submitted: April 25, 2023                                         Decided: April 28, 2023
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Brandon Marquis Jennings, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 23-1170      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Brandon Marquis Jennings petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
    disqualifying the district judge and appointing counsel in his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     proceeding.
    He also contends that the district court erred in denying him bail. We conclude that
    Jennings 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. Murphy-Brown, 
    907 F.3d at 795
    .
    Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 
    503 F.3d 351
    , 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
    Jennings has not established a basis to disqualify the district judge, and the other
    relief he seeks is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny his petitions.
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23-1170

Filed Date: 4/28/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/29/2023