In re: Daren Gadsden, No. 19-1312 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1312 In re: DAREN KAREEM GADSDEN, a/k/a D, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:11-cr-00302-CCB-3) Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 17, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daren Kareem Gadsden, Petitioner Pro Se. Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daren Kareem Gadsden petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court to: (a) dismiss the bank fraud counts of which he was convicted; and (b) resentence Gadsden and state on the record the statutory provision upon which the district court relied when it ordered Gadsden to pay restitution. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 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 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), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987); see In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). We conclude that Gadsden is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Gadsden’s petition for a writ of mandamus. 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.