Source: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Date: 2007-07-03
Jurisdiction: United States
Docket: No. 07-6744
Citation: 231 F. App'x 288
Opinion
PER CURIAM: George Ogueno Opande petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks an order declaring his guilty plea and plea agreement unconstitutional. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In Re: First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See 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).
Because Opande does not have a clear right to the requested relief, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.