Opinion
22-2286
03-17-2023
In re: KENNETH ROSHAUN REID, Petitioner.
Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Petitioner Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: January 31, 2023
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1)
Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Petitioner Pro Se.
William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth Roshaun Reid petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this court directing the district court to correct his sentencing calculations under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and hold a hearing resentencing him on his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, or-if the jury found no drug quantity elements-to dismiss this conviction and his conviction for murder through use of a firearm in the course of a drug trafficking crime and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(j)(1). We conclude that Reid 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). Further, 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 (cleaned up). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Reid is not available by way of mandamus. 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.