In re: Brandon Jennings
In re: Brandon Jennings
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1777
In re: BRANDON MARQUIS JENNINGS, a/k/a Smilez, a/k/a Smilez Finesse, a/k/a Beezy, a/k/a Mustafa Bey,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:18-cr-00318-FL-1)
Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: September 17, 2021
Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brandon Marquis Jennings, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Brandon Marquis Jennings petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
rescinding various orders entered in his direct appeal. We conclude that Jennings is not
entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,
542 U.S. 367, 380(2004); In re Murphy-Brown,
LLC,
907 F.3d 788, 795(4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when
the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to
attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown,
907 F.3d at 795(alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re
Lockheed Martin Corp.,
503 F.3d 351, 353(4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Jennings is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly,
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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished