Darrell L. Padgett petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring the district court to act on his pending Fed. R.Crim.P. 36 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motions. He also seeks a reduction in his criminal sentence. We conclude that Padgett is not entitled to mandamus relief.

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). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used 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, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

A reduction of Padgett’s sentence is not available by way of mandamus. In addition, we find no unreasonable delay in the district court’s proceedings. Accordingly, we grant Padgett’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and deny his 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.