USCA4 Appeal: 25-2060 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2060

In re: XAVER MONTEZ BOSTON, a/k/a Romeo, a/k/a Rome, a/k/a Ro,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. (3:18-cr-00095-RJC-DCK-1)

Submitted: October 16, 2025 Decided: October 20, 2025

Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Xaver Montez Boston, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-2060 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Xaver Montez Boston petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district

court has unduly delayed in acting on his amended

motion to vacate,

resulting in a violation of his constitutional rights. He seeks an order from this court

entering a default judgment against the district court or, alternatively, directing that court

to hold an evidentiary hearing and issue a modified punishment. We conclude that Boston

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). 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,

(citation modified). Our review

of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court denied relief on Boston’s

amended § 2255 motion on September 18, 2025. Accordingly, to the extent Boston seeks

mandamus relief based on undue delay in the district court, his petition is moot.

Further, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed

Martin Corp.,

(4th Cir. 2007). Relief in the form of an order from this

court entering a default judgment against the district court or directing that court to hold an

evidentiary hearing and issue a modified punishment is not available by way of mandamus.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-2060 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/20/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

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