Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Kevin Walker, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Kevin Walker petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to vacate its order denying his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court denied the petition, finding that Walker was not entitled to mandamus relief because it is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. Further, mandamus relief is only available when there is a clear right to the relief sought. The court also noted that mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Therefore, the relief Walker sought was not available through mandamus and his petition was denied.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-07-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-1589

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Kevin Walker petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to vacate its order denying his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court denied the petition, finding that Walker was not entitled to mandamus relief because it is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. Further, mandamus relief is only available when there is a clear right to the relief sought. The court also noted that mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Therefore, the relief Walker sought was not available through mandamus and his petition was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Kevin Walker, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Kevin Walker petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to vacate its order denying his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court denied the petition, finding that Walker was not entitled to mandamus relief because it is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. Further, mandamus relief is only available when there is a clear right to the relief sought. The court also noted that mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Therefore, the relief Walker sought was not available through mandamus and his petition was denied.

    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. 11-1589

    In re:

    KEVIN LAMONT WALKER,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus


    (No. 4:05-cr-00005-RBS-JEB-1)
    Submitted:

    July 21, 2011

    Before NIEMEYER and


    Senior Circuit Judge.

    GREGORY,

    Decided:
    Circuit

    Judges,

    July 25, 2011


    and

    HAMILTON,

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Kevin Lamont Walker, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Kevin Lamont Walker petitions for a writ of mandamus
    seeking an order compelling the district court to vacate its
    previous order denying Walkers 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006)
    motion for a sentence reduction.

    We conclude that Walker is not

    entitled to mandamus relief.


    Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
    only
    Dist.

    in

    extraordinary

    Court,

    Moussaoui,

    426

    333

    circumstances.

    U.S.

    F.3d

    394,

    509,

    402

    516-17

    Kerr

    (1976);
    (4th

    Cir.

    v.

    United

    United

    States

    States

    2003).

    v.

    Further,

    mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a


    clear right to the relief sought.

    In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

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


    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 Walker is not available by way of mandamus.
    Accordingly,

    although

    pauperis,

    we

    dispense

    with

    deny
    oral

    we

    the

    grant

    petition

    argument

    leave
    for

    because

    to

    writ
    the

    proceed
    of

    in

    mandamus.

    facts

    and

    forma
    We
    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    PETITION DENIED

    You might also like