USCA4 Appeal: 25-1882 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1882

In re: MUWSAY IBN IBRAHIM TULU, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. (1:23-cr-00344-TDS-2)

Submitted: September 25, 2025 Decided: September 30, 2025

Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Muwsay Ibn Ibrahim Tulu, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1882 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Muwsay Ibn Ibrahim Tulu, who is currently awaiting sentencing in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to (1) conduct an evidentiary hearing on his pending pro se motions and (2) dismiss the charges against him. We conclude that Tulu 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 and indisputable right” to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

We are satisfied that Tulu is not entitled to mandamus relief. As for Tulu’s request that we direct the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his pending motions, he has not shown that he has a clear and indisputable right to that relief. Additionally, should the district court decline to conduct an evidentiary hearing on those motions, Tulu may pursue that issue in an appeal from the criminal judgment. As to Tulu’s request that we direct the district court to dismiss the charges against him, Tulu likewise has not shown

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1882 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/30/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

a clear and indisputable right to that relief. And in any event, Tulu may pursue his challenges to his conviction on appeal from the criminal judgment. * 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

* Tulu’s mandamus petition presents other arguments, including that his case should be transferred to a different venue, that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, that the presentence report drafting process was defective, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Tulu has not established a clear and indisputable right to relief on those arguments. He also has other adequate means of presenting those arguments. Indeed, Tulu makes many of those arguments in his motions currently pending with the district court. In addition, Tulu may pursue those arguments on appeal from the criminal judgment or in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.