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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 28 U.S.C. § 2255 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., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (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, 907 F.3d at 795 (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., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (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.

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