U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2005

In re: Emmanuel v.

In re: Emmanuel v.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided October 3, 2005 · Luttig, Motz, Duncan
144 F. App'x 982

In re: Emmanuel v.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Shahborn Emmanuel seeks a writ of mandamus remanding his ease to the district court for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). *983 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). Mandamus relief is available only when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. The party seeking mandamus relief bears the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). Emmanuel fails to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny Emmanuel’s 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 the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.