US v. Julian Thornton, No. 08-7775 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7775 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. JULIAN MATTHEW THORNTON, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:03-hc-00194-BR) Submitted: September 4, 2009 Decided: October 14, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julian Matthew Thornton, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Huband, BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Julian Matthew Thornton appeals the district court s order denying his motion to transfer venue and the district court s subsequent order continuing his commitment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006). First, venue Finding no error, we affirm. is proper in the Eastern District North Carolina where Thornton was originally committed. U.S.C. § 4247(h) (2008). of See 18 Therefore, the district court did not err in denying Thornton s motion to transfer venue. find no error in Thornton s continued commitment. Second, we Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered an order finding by clear and convincing evidence that Thornton, who was originally committed to the Attorney General s custody in 2003, continued to suffer from a mental disease or defect as a result of which his unconditional release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another. 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d). record and find no reversible error. district court s orders. We have reviewed the Accordingly, we affirm the United States v. Thornton, No. 5:03- hc-00194-BR (E.D.N.C. July 30, 2008; Aug. 4, 2008). Thornton also petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order recusing the district court judge. Thornton is not entitled to mandamus relief. We conclude that Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the 2 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 only be used in extraordinary circumstances. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). 402 Kerr v. (1976); In re Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). Thornton offers no showing of bias or impartiality of the district court. Thornton is able to seek relief mandamus relief is not available. through Moreover, because his direct appeal, Therefore, we deny Thornton s mandamus petition. We further deny Thornton s motions to transfer venue, to recuse, and to expand the record on appeal. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
