Gary William, No. 10-1746 (4th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1746 In Re: GARY BUTERRA WILLIAMS, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:08-cr-00087-RGD-FBS-1) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Buterra Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary Buterra Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order dismissing the indictment violations of his rights to a speedy trial. against him for We conclude that Williams is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only Dist. in extraordinary Court, Moussaoui, mandamus 426 333 relief U.S. F.3d is Kerr circumstances. 509, 394, 402 516-17 available (4th only clear right to the relief sought. (1976); v. United Cir. when United States 2003). the States v. Further, petitioner has a In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Williams filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in the district court based on violations of his rights to a speedy trial that the district court denied, and Williams has not by Williams is not appealed that order. Therefore, the relief available by way of mandamus. sought Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. stay the district We also deny Williams emergency motion to court proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 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.