In re: Brandon Jennings, No. 21-2012 (4th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-2012 In re: BRANDON MARQUIS JENNINGS, a/k/a Smilez, a/k/a Smilez Finesse, a/k/a Beezy, Mustafa Bey, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:18-cr-00318-FL-1) Submitted: December 16, 2021 Decided: December 17, 2021 Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brandon Marquis Jennings, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brandon Marquis Jennings petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing recusal of the district judge assigned to his federal criminal case. Jennings also challenges several orders entered during his criminal proceedings. We conclude that Jennings is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Jennings may not challenge his convictions by way of mandamus, and he has not demonstrated a basis for recusal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for 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.
