In action No. 02-7422, Barbara Sutton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Sutton has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Sutton, CR-90-432-A (E.D.Va., Sept. 10, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000).

In action No. 02-7563, Sutton petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order compelling the district court to appoint her counsel and grant her an evidentiary hearing. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re: First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re: Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). Sutton has not established a basis for mandamus relief. Although we grant Sutton’s pending motion for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

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 in the decisional process.

No. 02-7A22-DISMISSED.

No. QZ-im3-PETITION DENIED.