In re: Kenneth Reid

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2286 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/17/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2286

In re: KENNETH ROSHAUN REID,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1)

Submitted: January 31, 2023 Decided: March 17, 2023

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Petitioner Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2286 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/17/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Roshaun Reid petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this

court directing the district court to correct his sentencing calculations under the Fair

Sentencing Act of 2010 and hold a hearing resentencing him on his conviction for

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, or—if the jury found no drug quantity elements—to dismiss

this conviction and his conviction for murder through use of a firearm in the course of a

drug trafficking crime and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(j)(1).

We conclude that Reid 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 and “has no other adequate means to

attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (cleaned up). Mandamus

may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351,

353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The relief sought by Reid is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we

deny the 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