In re: Albert Burgess, Jr.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1120 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1120 In re: ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR., Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. (1:09-cr-00017-GCM-WCM-1) Submitted: March 11, 2025 Decided: March 14, 2025 Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1120 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this court granting a hearing, appointing him counsel, and releasing him from custody. We conclude that Burgess 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 Burgess 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 2