USCA4 Appeal: 24-1598 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1598

In re: EMORY TAYLOR CHILES,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. (1:18-cr-00007-TSK-MJA-1; 1:20-cv-00080- TSK)

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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emory Taylor Chiles, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1598 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Emory Chiles petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court

declaring his criminal judgment invalid or ordering the district court to do so. * We

conclude that Chiles 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).

In support of his petition for a writ of mandamus, Chiles alleges that there were

defects in the grand jury process, that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his criminal

proceeding, and that his convictions are void. We find that Chiles has not established that

he has no available remedy other than mandamus relief. Rather, Chiles may raise these

claims in a

motion filed in the district court or in a motion pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Because Chiles has not shown that he has a clear right to the relief

he seeks and because Chiles has other means to attain the relief he seeks—and in fact has

filed in the district court a Rule 60(b) motion in which he raised these same claims—we

conclude that mandamus relief is not warranted.

* To the extent that Chiles claims that the district court has delayed in ruling on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions, the present record does not reveal undue delay.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1598 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

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

3