In Re: Robert Sisk

Fourth Circuit

In Re: Robert Sisk

489 F. App'x 717

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 26, 2012

Docket12-2045

StatusUnpublished

This text of 489 F. App'x 717 (In Re: Robert Sisk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re: Robert Sisk, 489 F. App'x 717 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lionel Sisk is serving the 276-month sentence imposed after he was found guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine. Sisk petitions for a writ of mandamus, or other forms of extraordinary relief, * seeking an order vacating his sentence and remanding to the district court for resentencing in light of Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010), and Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 170 L.Ed.2d 490 (2008). We conclude that Sisk is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances, when “the petitioner has no other adequate means to obtain relief to which there is a clear and indisputable right.” In re Blackwater Sec. Consulting, L.L.C., 460 F.3d 576, 592 (4th Cir.2006) (internal quotations omitted); see also Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). “Courts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir.1987).

The relief sought by Sisk is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten *718 tions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.

*

Alternatively, Sisk asks us to grant him a writ of audita querela or coram nobis, to recall the mandate in his criminal case, or for leave to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. We conclude that Sisk is not entitled to any of these forms of relief.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lionel Sisk is serving the 276-month sentence imposed after he was found guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine. Sisk petitions for a writ of mandamus, or other forms of extraordinary relief, * seeking an order vacating his sentence and remanding to the district court for resentencing in light of Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010), and Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 170 L.Ed.2d 490 (2008). We conclude that Sisk is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances, when “the petitioner has no other adequate means to obtain relief to which there is a clear and indisputable right.” In re Blackwater Sec. Consulting, L.L.C., 460 F.3d 576, 592 (4th Cir.2006) (internal quotations omitted); see also Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). “Courts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir.1987).

The relief sought by Sisk is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten *718 tions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.

*

Alternatively, Sisk asks us to grant him a writ of audita querela or coram nobis, to recall the mandate in his criminal case, or for leave to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. We conclude that Sisk is not entitled to any of these forms of relief.

In Re Blackwater Security Consulting, Llc, a Delaware Limited Liability Company Blackwater Lodge and Training Center, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, in Re Justin L. McQuown Richard P. Nordan, as Ancillary Administrator for the Separate Estates of Stephen S. Helvenston, Mike R. Teague, Jerko Gerald Zovko and Wesley J.K. Batalona, and Estate of Stephen S. Helvenston Estate of Mike R. Teague Estate of Jerko Gerald Zovko Estate of Wesley J.K. Batalona v. Blackwater Security Consulting, Llc, a Delaware Limited Liability Company Blackwater Lodge and Training Center, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, and Justin L. McQuown an Individual Thomas Powell, Professional Services Council International Peace Operations Association American International Group, Incorporated, Amici Supporting Richard P. Nordan, as Ancillary Administrator for the Separate Estates of Stephen S. Helvenston, Mike R. Teague, Jerko Gerald Zovko and Wesley J.K. Batalona, and Estate of Stephen S. Helvenston Estate of Mike R. Teague Estate of Jerko Gerald Zovko Estate of Wesley J.K. Batalona v. Justin L. McQuown an Individual, and Blackwater Security Consulting, Llc, a Delaware Limited Liability Company Blackwater Lodge and Training Center, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation Thomas Powell, Professional Services Council International Peace Operations Association American International Group, Incorporated, Amici Supporting

460 F.3d 576 (Fourth Circuit, 2006)

Johnson v. United States

176 L. Ed. 2d 1 (Supreme Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 F. App'x 717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-robert-sisk-ca4-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack