In re: Patrick Edwin Rudd

* Judge Widener did not participate in consideration of this
case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 46(d) (1994).
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6988
In Re: PATRICK EDWIN RUDD,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-279-5)
Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000
Before WIDENER, * NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick Edwin Rudd, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

* Insofar as Rudd’s petition for a writ of mandamus may be
construed as a notice of appeal from the district court’s denial of
his motion for a certificate of appealability, we find that the
district court did not err in denying the motion.
2
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Edwin Rudd has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order directing the district court to grant him a cer-
tificate of appealability. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used
only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States
Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). The party seeking mandamus
relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has “no other
adequate means to attain the relief he desires” and that his right
to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v.
Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Rudd has not made such a showing. * Accordingly, we dis-
miss the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --