In re: Karl Mcdonald, a/k/a Lil Boo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2013
In re: KARL MCDONALD, a/k/a Lil Boo,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:13-cr-00307-WDQ-9)
Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Karl McDonald, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Karl McDonald petitions for a writ of mandamus directing
the district court to dismiss his conviction due to the
Government’s failure to submit a timely response to his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We conclude that McDonald is not
entitled to the relief he seeks.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only
in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426
U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509,
516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available
only when: (1) the petitioner has a “clear and indisputable”
right to the relief sought and (2) there are no other means by
which the relief sought could be granted. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d
at 517. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.
In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
McDonald has failed to show that he has a right to the
relief sought. 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 2 of 2 --