In re: Reggie Kelley, No. 09-1738 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1738 In Re: REGGIE LAMAR KELLEY, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: November 16, 2009 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. NIEMEYER, (3:04-cr-00998-CMC-1) Decided: Circuit December 11, 2009 Judges, and HAMILTON, Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reggie Lamar Kelley, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Reggie Lamar Kelley, convicted and sentenced to 360 months in prison for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006), has petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus. In his petition, Kelley asks this court to vacate his sentence and remand his matter for resentencing because he alleges that the district court erroneously sentenced him as a career offender. To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that: (1) he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought; (2) the responding party has a clear duty to do the specific act requested; (3) the act requested is an official act or duty; (4) there are no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires; and (5) the issuance of the writ will effect right and justice in the circumstances. In re Braxton, quotation Kelley s marks 258 and petition F.3d 250, citation and find 261 (4th Cir. omitted). We that Kelley 2001) have does not (internal considered meet the exacting requirements necessary for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. 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. PETITION DENIED 2

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.