In Re Lenise SYKES, a/k/a Lenise Hawkins, a/k/a Lenise Givens, a/k/a Zina Swinton, a/k/a Lita L. Skinner, a/k/a Lenise M. Skinner, Petitioner, 48 F. App'x 882

PER CURIAM. Lenise Sykes has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that this court order her release from custody based on her claim that one of the United States Attorneys involved in her criminal prosecution did not possess a valid license to practice law. “The granting of a writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir.1987).

A petitioner must show that she has a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent has a clear duty to perform the act requested by petitioner, and that there is no other adequate remedy available. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135,138 (4th Cir.1988). We find that Sykes has failed to make the requisite showing of extraordinary circumstances justifying mandamus relief because she cannot show that there is no other adequate remedy available. Sykes may raise this issue in a direct appeal of her criminal conviction.

See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979) (holding that mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal). Accordingly, we deny the petition for a 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.