Source: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Date: 2006-10-03
Jurisdiction: United States
Docket: No. 06-7108
Citation: 201 F. App'x 930
Opinion
PER CURIAM: Mohammad Zindadil petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring the Government to file a Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 motion. We conclude that Zindadil is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987).
The party seeking mandamus relief must show that he has no other means of obtaining the requested relief. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). The relief sought by Zindadil is not available by way of mandamus. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED.