In re: LeAnthony Winston

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2114 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2114

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-AWA-DEM-1; 2:24-cv-00345-AWA)

Submitted: April 10, 2025 Decided: April 14, 2025

Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

LeAnthony T. Winston, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2114 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

LeAnthony Winston petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing

the district court to release him on bond, act on his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and

schedule a hearing on the motion. 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for

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

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).

Winston has not shown that he has a clear right to the relief sought. Additionally,

to the extent Winston asserts that the district court has unduly delayed ruling on his § 2255

motion, our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court recently took

significant action on the motion. Accordingly, we deny Winston’s mandamus petition and

his motion for judicial notice. 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