In Re: Tariq Belt, No. 12-1815 (4th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1815 In re: TARIQ LIYUEN ADEVEMI BELT, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. (1:03-cr-00376-WDQ-1; 8:10-cv-02921-PJM) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: November 26, 2012 and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tariq Liyuen Adevemi Belt, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tariq Liyuen Adevemi Belt petitions for a writ of mandamus complaining of various wrongs committed by the district court and his former attorney in his criminal case and his postconviction proceedings. He requests $19 million in compensation and that his petition and all documents and opinions relating to his cases be sealed and not released to the public through the internet or otherwise. We conclude that Belt is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in Dist. extraordinary Court, 426 circumstances. U.S. 394, 402 Kerr (1976); v. United Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). not be used as a substitute for appeal. United States States v. Mandamus may In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Additionally, 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). The relief sought by Belt is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his motion to seal documents and deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.