In re: Brandon Jennings
In re: Brandon Jennings
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2139 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2139
In re: BRANDON MARQUIS JENNINGS, a/k/a Smilez, a/k/a Smilez Finesse, a/k/a Breezy, a/k/a Mustafa Bey,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:18-cr-00318-FL-1)
Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 2, 2024
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brandon Marquis Jennings, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2139 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Marquis Jennings petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
compelling the district court to direct the Government to respond to a memorandum that
Jennings filed in his
28 U.S.C. § 2255proceeding. 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).
Jennings has not established a clear right to the relief he seeks. 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- Unpublished