In re: Kelvin Spotts

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1848 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1848

In re: KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS, a/k/a Shorty,

Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. (3:00-cv-00647; 3:98-cr-00047-1)

Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: June 9, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin Andre Spotts, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1848 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

In his original mandamus petition and first supplemental mandamus petition, Kelvin

Andre Spotts alleges that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for a

sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132

Stat. 5194, 5222, and on his emergency motion for immediate release. He seeks an order

from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket

reveals that the district court has granted this motion in part, along with his motion for

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, because the district

court has recently decided Spotts’ motions, we deny his original and first supplemental

mandamus petitions as moot.

In his second supplemental mandamus petition, Spotts seeks an order from this

Court compelling the district court to amend its judgment. Mandamus is a drastic remedy

to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367,

380 (2004); In re Moore, 955 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir. 2020). Mandamus relief is available

only when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted and the

petitioner demonstrates “that he has a clear and indisputable right to that relief.” In re

Moore, 955 F.3d at 388 (internal quotation marks omitted). Mandamus may not be used

as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

Because the relief sought by Spotts is not available by way of mandamus, we deny his

second supplemental mandamus petition. We also deny his motion to expedite the

decision.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1848 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

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.

PETITIONS DENIED