In Re: Karl McDonald, No. 15-2013 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2013 In re: KARL MCDONALD, a/k/a Lil Boo, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: January 14, 2016 (1:13-cr-00307-WDQ-9) Decided: January 19, 2016 Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karl McDonald, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Karl McDonald petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the district Government’s court to dismiss failure to submit U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. his a conviction timely due response to to the his 28 We conclude that McDonald is not entitled to the relief he seeks. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when: (1) the petitioner has a “clear and indisputable” right to the relief sought and (2) there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted. at 517. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). McDonald has failed to show that he has a right to the relief sought. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal 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.