Rodney H. Williams petitions for writ of mandamus. He seeks an order directing this court to retract and correct alleged errors in the opinion issued in United States v. Williams, 70 FedAppx. 141 (4th Cir. 2003) (unpublished). He further seeks an order directing certain judges that considered his direct criminal appeal be recused. The mandate in Williams’ appeal was entered September 10, 2003. As a result, this court is without jurisdiction over the case. See Johnson v. Bechtel Assoc. Prof'l Corp., D.C., 801 F.2d 412, 415 (D.C.Cir. 1986); United States v. DiLapi, 651 F.2d 140, 144 (2d. Cir. 1981). Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). A court of appeals may issue a writ “for the sole purpose of protecting the respective jurisdiction” of the court. Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). Because this court is without jurisdiction over the appeal and very unlikely to ever regain jurisdiction, there is no basis upon which to grant the writ. Moreover, assuming this court had jurisdiction, there is no basis upon which it would enter an order to itself in order to protect its jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. We grant Williams’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con *552 tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED