In re: LeAnthony Winston

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2114 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-2114 In re: LEANTHONY WINSTON, a/k/a Locks, a/k/a Lee Lee, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. (2:20-cr-00108-AWA-DEM-1; 2:24-cv-00345-AWA) Submitted: April 10, 2025 Decided: April 14, 2025 Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. LeAnthony T. Winston, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2114 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: LeAnthony Winston petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing the district court to release him on bond, act on his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and schedule a hearing on the motion. We conclude that Winston 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Furthermore, 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). Winston has not shown that he has a clear right to the relief sought. Additionally, to the extent Winston asserts that the district court has unduly delayed ruling on his § 2255 motion, our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court recently took significant action on the motion. Accordingly, we deny Winston’s mandamus petition and his motion for judicial notice. 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