Timothy Lamont Ruff petitions for a writ of mandamus requesting that this court direct his release from prison based on his claim that the United States lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him. We conclude that Ruff is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief *281 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

The relief sought by Ruff is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in foi’ma pauperis, 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 the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.