Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Lewis V., 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Darryl Eugene Lewis's petition for a writ of mandamus. Lewis sought an order directing the district court to follow certain sentencing statutes and guidelines and to immediately release him from confinement. The court denied the petition because mandamus relief is only available when there is a clear right to the relief sought, which Lewis did not have. Mandamus is also a drastic remedy that should only be used in extraordinary circumstances, and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. While granting Lewis's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the court denied both the petition for writ of mandamus and Lewis's motion to expedite the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-10-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7211

    Original Title

    In Re: Lewis v., 4th Cir. (2005)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Darryl Eugene Lewis's petition for a writ of mandamus. Lewis sought an order directing the district court to follow certain sentencing statutes and guidelines and to immediately release him from confinement. The court denied the petition because mandamus relief is only available when there is a clear right to the relief sought, which Lewis did not have. Mandamus is also a drastic remedy that should only be used in extraordinary circumstances, and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. While granting Lewis's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the court denied both the petition for writ of mandamus and Lewis's motion to expedite the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views2 pages

    In Re: Lewis V., 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Darryl Eugene Lewis's petition for a writ of mandamus. Lewis sought an order directing the district court to follow certain sentencing statutes and guidelines and to immediately release him from confinement. The court denied the petition because mandamus relief is only available when there is a clear right to the relief sought, which Lewis did not have. Mandamus is also a drastic remedy that should only be used in extraordinary circumstances, and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. While granting Lewis's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the court denied both the petition for writ of mandamus and Lewis's motion to expedite the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7211

    In Re:

    DARRYL EUGENE LEWIS,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus


    (CR-00-310)

    Submitted:

    September 27, 2005

    Decided:

    October 4, 2005

    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Darryl Eugene Lewis, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Darryl Eugene Lewis petitions for writ of mandamus.

    He

    seeks an order directing the district court to follow certain


    statutes and sentencing guidelines and to order his immediate
    release from confinement.
    Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has
    a clear right to the relief sought.

    See In re First Fed. Sav. &

    Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

    Further, mandamus

    is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary


    circumstances.

    See 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.

    See In re

    United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).


    The relief sought by Lewis is not available by way of
    mandamus.

    Accordingly, although we grant Lewiss motion for leave

    to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of


    mandamus.

    We deny Lewiss motion to expedite the appeal.

    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 -

    You might also like