In re: Gary Buterra Williams

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2208
In Re: GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(4:08-cr-00087-RGD-FBS-1)
Submitted: March 5, 2010 Decided: March 18, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Buterra Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Gary Buterra Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order compelling the district court to adjudicate his
motion to dismiss the indictment on the merits. The district
court had directed the clerk to return Williams’ motion to
dismiss to him because an interlocutory appeal Williams had
filed was pending with this court. The district court order
further directed the clerk to decline to file additional
pleadings in the matter until Williams’ appeal was “resolved by
the Fourth Circuit.” We conclude that Williams 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 be used only in
extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,
426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th
Cir. 1987).
Here, Williams has failed to demonstrate that there
are no other adequate means to obtain the relief he desires.
Specifically, because the pending appeal in this court that
served as a basis for the district court’s order has concluded,
the filing restriction imposed by the district court has abated
and Williams is now free to re-file his motion to dismiss.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, 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

-- 3 of 3 --