USCA4 Appeal: 24-1562 Doc: 14 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1562

In re: JAMES BAXTON, a/k/a Grown, a/k/a Frank White,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. (3:17-cr-00134-FDW-SCR-5)

Submitted: September 12, 2024 Decided: September 16, 2024

Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Baxton, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1562 Doc: 14 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

James Baxton, a federal prisoner, petitions for a writ of mandamus compelling this

court to review its prior decision dismissing his appeal of the district court’s denial of

relief. We conclude that Baxton 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.,

(2004); In re Murphy-Brown,

LLC,

(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,

(alteration and internal

quotation marks omitted).

The relief Baxton seeks is not available by way of mandamus. Baxton improperly

seeks to use mandamus to circumvent the statutory limitations on federal collateral review

of convictions. See Jones v. Hendrix,

(2023) (noting that “[§] 2255(h)

specifies the two limited conditions in which Congress has permitted federal prisoners to

bring second or successive collateral attacks”). Additionally, because this court has already

determined that reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s rejection of the

claims raised in Baxton’s § 2255 motion, Baxton does not have a clear right to relief on

those claims. See Murphy-Brown,

. Accordingly, we deny Baxton’s motion

for an emergency hearing, and 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