USCA4 Appeal: 21-2057 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/11/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2057

In re: EMORY TAYLOR CHILES, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:18-cr-00007-IMK-MJA-1)

Submitted: January 11, 2022 Decided: March 11, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emory Taylor Chiles, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2057 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/11/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Emory Taylor Chiles filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and seeking an order from this court directing the district court to act on his motion. He filed two supplemental mandamus petitions asserting that the district court did not have jurisdiction over his criminal case.

Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that, on December 20, 2021, the district court denied relief on Chiles’ § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because the district court has decided Chiles’ case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We also deny Chiles’ supplemental mandamus petition in which he challenges the validity of his criminal judgment. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances and when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (providing standard).

Additionally, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 517 (4th Cir. 2003).

We conclude that Chiles has not met the criteria for relief and therefore deny his petition for a writ of mandamus and his supplemental petitions for a writ of mandamus.

Additionally, we deny as unnecessary Chiles’ request for a certificate of appealability. 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