Michael Allen Kokoski petitions for writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing the district court to relinquish jurisdiction over his motion for immediate release and *266 having this court review the merits of the motion. We deny the petition.

The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires” and that his right 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) (citations omitted); In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976)).

Because Kokoski has other adequate means to attain the relief he requires, such as an appeal if the district court disposes of his motion unfavorably to him, we find he is not entitled to mandamus relief. *

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus as frivolous. 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.