US v. Eric Byers, No. 13-7340 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7340 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC MARIO BYERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:02-cr-00077-RBS-1) Submitted: November 19, 2013 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Circuit Decided: November 22, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Mario Byers, Assistant United Appellee. Appellant Pro Se. States Attorney, Joseph Evan DePadilla, Norfolk, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric Mario Byers appeals the district court s order denying his motion for transcripts at Government expense. have reviewed the record and find no reversible We error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Byers, No. 2:02-cr-00077-RBS-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2013). Byers also petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to respond to his pretrial motions filed back in 2003. We conclude that Byers 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 circumstances. 509, 394, 402 516-17 available (1976); (4th only clear right to the relief sought. Kerr Cir. when the v. United United States States 2003). v. Further, petitioner has a In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Because this issue was addressed on direct appeal, see United States v. Byers, No. 03-4426, 2004 WL 1209015 (4th Cir. June 3, 2004) (unpublished), Byers does not have a clear right to the relief sought. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order, deny Byers petition for a writ of mandamus and deny his motion for transcripts at Government expense. 2 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. AFFIRMED 3