In Re: White v., No. 07-6051 (4th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6051 In Re: CORNELL COREY WHITE, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (3:05-cv-00503) Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 5, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cornell Corey White, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cornell Cory White petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order vacating his federal conviction for escape or, in the alternative, ordering the district court to expeditiously resolve his conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion attacking that We conclude that White is not entitled to mandamus relief. 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). drastic remedy and should only be Further, mandamus is a used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). be used as a substitute for appeal. F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). from this court vacating Mandamus may not In re United Steelworkers, 595 To the extent White seeks an order his conviction, that relief is not available by way of mandamus. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court denied White s § 2255 motion by order of February 15, 2007. We find that, to the extent White s mandamus petition complains of undue delay in the district court, the petition is moot. Accordingly, although we grant White s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions - 2 - are adequately 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.