In re: LeAnthony Winston

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 26, 2023
• Docket: 23-1368
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1368 Doc: 16 Filed: 07/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1368

In re: LEANTHONY WINSTON, a/k/a Locks, a/k/a Lee Lee,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. (2:20-cr-00108-RGD-DEM-1)

Submitted: June 22, 2023 Decided: July 26, 2023

Before AGEE, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

LeAnthony T. Winston, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1368 Doc: 16 Filed: 07/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

LeAnthony Winston petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order vacating the

district court’s judgment in Winston’s criminal case. We conclude that Winston 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 (alteration and internal

quotation marks omitted).

Winston has appealed his criminal convictions and sentence, and his appeal is

currently pending before this court. See United States v. Winston, No. 22-4164 (4th Cir.

docketed Mar. 17, 2022). As mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re

Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), Winston has failed to

demonstrate that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Further, while mandamus may be used

to seek recusal of a district judge, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987),

Winston’s conclusory assertions of bias are insufficient to warrant recusal, see Belue v.

Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-73 (4th Cir. 2011).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and deny Winston’s

motion for judicial notice. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1368 Doc: 16 Filed: 07/26/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED