USCA4 Appeal: 24-2060 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2060

In re: HAKIM ABDULAH RASHID, a/k/a Rodney Buchanan,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. (4:10-cr-00941-JD-1)

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 23, 2024

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hakim Abdulah Rashid, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2060 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Hakim Abdulah Rashid petitions for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district

court has unduly delayed in ruling on his motions for sentence reduction, which includes a

subsequently filed supplement, and to correct his criminal history score. Rashid seeks an

order from this court directing the district court to act.

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). Mandamus relief is available only when there are

no other means by which the relief sought could be granted and when the petitioner

“show[s] that his right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable.” United States v.

Moussaoui,

(4th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up); see Cheney,

-

81. Unreasonable delay in the district court may be cause for mandamus relief. In re

United States ex rel. Drummond,

(5th Cir. 2018) (collecting cases); cf.

Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co.,

(1978) (“There can be no doubt that,

where a district court persistently and without reason refuses to adjudicate a case properly

before it, the court of appeals may issue the writ.”).

We conclude that the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court

so as to render any delay unreasonable. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. ∗

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

∗ While we deny mandamus relief, we encourage the district court to act as expeditiously as possible in this matter.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2060 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/23/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DENIED

3