Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Keith V., 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Charles Keith's petition for a writ of mandamus. In 2005, the court had vacated seven of the eighteen counts of Keith's 1997 conviction. Keith had filed a motion for resentencing with the district court, which was denied. In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Keith sought an order compelling the district court to strike the vacated counts, refund the special assessment on those counts, and resentence him under the advisory federal sentencing guidelines. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that mandamus relief was not available because Keith could appeal the district court's denial of his resentencing motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-04-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-2351

    Original Title

    In Re: Keith 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
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Charles Keith's petition for a writ of mandamus. In 2005, the court had vacated seven of the eighteen counts of Keith's 1997 conviction. Keith had filed a motion for resentencing with the district court, which was denied. In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Keith sought an order compelling the district court to strike the vacated counts, refund the special assessment on those counts, and resentence him under the advisory federal sentencing guidelines. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that mandamus relief was not available because Keith could appeal the district court's denial of his resentencing motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views3 pages

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Charles Keith's petition for a writ of mandamus. In 2005, the court had vacated seven of the eighteen counts of Keith's 1997 conviction. Keith had filed a motion for resentencing with the district court, which was denied. In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Keith sought an order compelling the district court to strike the vacated counts, refund the special assessment on those counts, and resentence him under the advisory federal sentencing guidelines. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that mandamus relief was not available because Keith could appeal the district court's denial of his resentencing motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-2351

    In Re:

    CHARLES KEITH,
    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

    Submitted:

    March 13, 2009

    (1:97-cr-00004-IMK-JSK-1)

    Decided:

    April 6, 2009

    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Keith, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    After this court in 2005 vacated seven of the eighteen
    counts

    on

    which

    Charles

    Keith

    was

    convicted

    in

    1997,

    district court denied Keiths motion for resentencing.

    the
    Keith

    now has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order


    compelling the district court to strike the vacated counts from
    his

    judgment,

    refund

    the

    special

    assessment

    imposed

    on

    the

    vacated counts, and resentence him under the advisory federal


    sentencing guidelines.

    We conclude that Keith is not entitled

    to mandamus relief.
    Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only
    in extraordinary circumstances.

    Kerr v. United States Dist.

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

    Mandamus relief is available only where there

    is no other available remedy.


    (4th Cir. 2001).

    In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261

    Because Keith had other means of pursuing the

    relief he sought, namely to file an appeal from the district


    courts

    order

    denying

    his

    motion

    for

    resentencing,

    mandamus

    relief is not available.


    Accordingly,

    although

    we

    grant

    leave

    to

    proceed

    forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.


    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    in
    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