Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Rochelle V., 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    (1) Okang Kareem Rochelle petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for a writ of mandamus to dismiss his indictment charging him with two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. (2) The court denied Rochelle's petition, determining that he was not entitled to mandamus relief because mandamus is a drastic remedy only appropriate in extraordinary circumstances, which were not present in this case. (3) While the court acknowledged Rochelle's assertions of speedy trial and other Sixth Amendment violations, it concluded after reviewing the record that he was not entitled to the relief sought in his mandamus petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-03-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-2185

    Original Title

    In Re: Rochelle v., 4th Cir. (2009)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    (1) Okang Kareem Rochelle petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for a writ of mandamus to dismiss his indictment charging him with two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. (2) The court denied Rochelle's petition, determining that he was not entitled to mandamus relief because mandamus is a drastic remedy only appropriate in extraordinary circumstances, which were not present in this case. (3) While the court acknowledged Rochelle's assertions of speedy trial and other Sixth Amendment violations, it concluded after reviewing the record that he was not entitled to the relief sought in his mandamus petition.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Rochelle V., 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    (1) Okang Kareem Rochelle petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for a writ of mandamus to dismiss his indictment charging him with two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. (2) The court denied Rochelle's petition, determining that he was not entitled to mandamus relief because mandamus is a drastic remedy only appropriate in extraordinary circumstances, which were not present in this case. (3) While the court acknowledged Rochelle's assertions of speedy trial and other Sixth Amendment violations, it concluded after reviewing the record that he was not entitled to the relief sought in his mandamus petition.

    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. 08-2185

    In Re:

    OKANG KAREEM ROCHELLE,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

    Submitted:

    (1:05-cr-00112-UA-1)

    February 18, 2009

    Decided:

    March 9, 2009

    Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Okang Kareem Rochelle, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Okang Kareem Rochelle petitions for a writ of mandamus
    in which he seeks an order dismissing an indictment that charges
    him in two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm,
    in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006).

    We

    conclude that Rochelle is not entitled to mandamus relief.


    Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner
    has a clear right to the relief sought.
    & Loan

    Assn,

    mandamus

    is

    860
    a

    F.2d

    135,

    drastic

    138

    remedy

    extraordinary circumstances.

    (4th

    and

    In re First Fed. Sav.


    Cir.

    1988).

    should

    be

    used

    Further,
    only

    in

    Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,

    426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th
    Cir. 1987).

    Rochelle asserts that he is entitled to mandamus

    relief

    due

    to

    speedy

    trial,

    violations
    and

    other

    of

    his

    Sixth

    violations

    of

    Amendment
    his

    right

    rights.

    We

    to

    have

    reviewed the record and determine Rochelle is not entitled to


    the

    relief

    sought.

    Accordingly,

    although

    we

    grant

    leave

    to

    proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Rochelles motion to expedite


    and deny his petition for writ of mandamus.
    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    We dispense with

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    PETITION DENIED
    2

    You might also like