Case: 19-60110 Document: 00515251854 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 19-60110 FILED Summary Calendar December 30, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JULIO ARMANDO BRUNET, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:18-CV-456

Before STEWART, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Julio Armando Brunet, federal prisoner # 05079-104, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order releasing him from incarceration and directing the United States to pay him monetary damages.

A district court’s determination that it will not exercise its discretion to grant a petition for mandamus is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Newsome

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Case: 19-60110 Document: 00515251854 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2019

No. 19-60110 v. E.E.O.C., 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 2002). “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only in the clearest and most compelling cases.”

In re Willy, 831 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 1987). A party seeking mandamus relief must show both that he has no other adequate means to obtain the requested relief and that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Brunet failed to pursue properly his opportunity to appeal his conviction and sentence that he challenges, and he continues to have an option of seeking postconviction relief. He is not entitled to mandamus relief because he failed to pursue remedies that were and may be available to him. Id. Further, Brunet has not shown a clear and indisputable right to relief. Id. He has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.