In re: Arthur Jones, No. 23-1973 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1973 In re: ARTHUR F. JONES, a/k/a Arthur Palmer, a/k/a June, a/k/a Junior, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. (2:99-cr-00362-DCN-1) Submitted: November 21, 2023 Decided: November 27, 2023 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur F. Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Arthur F. Jones petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district judge to vacate Jones’ criminal conviction for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We conclude that Jones 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). Further, 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 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). The relief sought by Jones is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We deny Jones’ motion to expedite as moot. 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
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.
