In re: LeAnthony Winston

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

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

3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED