Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • In Re: Reese V., 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Willie Lewis Reese filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to be relieved of an allegedly illegal sentence and remanded for resentencing and an evidentiary hearing regarding his counsel's performance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the petition, stating that mandamus relief is only available when there is a clear right to the relief sought, which was not the case here. The court further noted that mandamus is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. As the relief sought was not available through mandamus, the petition was denied.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-12-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-1938

    Original Title

    In Re: Reese v., 4th Cir. (2008)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Willie Lewis Reese filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to be relieved of an allegedly illegal sentence and remanded for resentencing and an evidentiary hearing regarding his counsel's performance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the petition, stating that mandamus relief is only available when there is a clear right to the relief sought, which was not the case here. The court further noted that mandamus is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. As the relief sought was not available through mandamus, the petition was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    In Re: Reese V., 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Willie Lewis Reese filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to be relieved of an allegedly illegal sentence and remanded for resentencing and an evidentiary hearing regarding his counsel's performance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the petition, stating that mandamus relief is only available when there is a clear right to the relief sought, which was not the case here. The court further noted that mandamus is a drastic remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. As the relief sought was not available through mandamus, the 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. 08-1938

    In Re:

    WILLIE LEWIS REESE,


    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


    (3:05-cr-00241-RJC-1; 3:07-cv-00507-RJC)

    Submitted:

    November 21, 2008

    Decided:

    December 11, 2008

    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Willie Lewis Reese, Petitioner Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Willie Lewis Reese petitions for a writ of mandamus,
    seeking orders relieving him of an allegedly illegal sentence
    and remanding him to the district court for resentencing and an
    evidentiary hearing concerning his counsels performance.

    We

    deny the petition.


    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).

    Further,

    mandamus

    only

    is

    drastic

    remedy

    extraordinary circumstances.

    and

    should

    be

    used

    in

    Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,

    426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re: Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th
    Cir. 1987).
    The relief sought by Reese is not available by way of
    mandamus.

    Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

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


    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    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