In Re: Frazier v.

61 F. App'x 880

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Reginald Frazier, disbarred as an attorney in 1989, has recently been convicted in North Carolina state court of several counts stemming from his unauthorized practice of law. He petitions this court for a writ of mandamus staying his sentence or ordering the state court to set a reasonable bond pending appeal.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826, (4th Cir.1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, see Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review state court orders, see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). Thus, the relief sought by Frazier is not available by way of mandamus.

Accordingly, we deny Frazier’s motion for stay or injunction of his sentence and deny his petition for mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.