US v. Darrell Law, No. 09-7288 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7288 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRELL LAW, a/k/a B, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00020-IMK-DJJ-9; 1:08-cv-00171-IMKDJJ) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed; petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell Law, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darrell Law seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion for the recusal of United States District Court Judge Keeley. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over 28 final orders, U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Law seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Law requests that his informal appellate brief also be considered as a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this court directing Judge Keeley to be recused from his pending post-conviction proceeding. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the 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 v. Maussaoui, 333 F. 3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Law s allegations regarding Judge Keeley s purported extrajudicial bias fall far short of those necessary to warrant her recusal. Accordingly, we conclude Law is not entitled to mandamus relief. 2 For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED; PETITION DENIED 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.
