In re: William Glover

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 2024

Docket23-2274

StatusUnpublished

This text of In re: William Glover (In re: William Glover) 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: William Glover, (4th Cir. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2274 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2274

In re: WILLIAM KEVIN GLOVER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Prohibition to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. (1:22-cr-00066-TSK-MJA-1)

Submitted: March 28, 2024 Decided: April 1, 2024

Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Kevin Glover, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2274 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

William Kevin Glover petitions for a writ of prohibition, asking this court to prohibit

the district court from exercising jurisdiction over his criminal charges and ordering the

court to show cause why he should not be immediately released. We conclude that Glover

is not entitled to the relief he seeks. “[A] writ of prohibition is a drastic and extraordinary

remedy which should be granted only when the petitioner has shown [that] his right to the

writ [is] clear and undisputable[,] . . . that the actions of the court were a clear abuse of

discretion,” In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983), and that he has “no other

adequate means to attain the desired relief,” In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 921 F.2d 1310, 1314

(3d Cir. 1990) (cleaned up). A writ of prohibition may not be used as a substitute for

appeal. In re Vargas, 723 F.2d at 1468; see United States v. Foster, 296 F.2d 249, 251 (4th

Cir. 1961). The relief sought by Glover is not available by way of a writ of prohibition.

Accordingly, we deny Glover’s petition. 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

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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2274 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2274

In re: WILLIAM KEVIN GLOVER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Prohibition to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. (1:22-cr-00066-TSK-MJA-1)

Submitted: March 28, 2024 Decided: April 1, 2024

Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Kevin Glover, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2274 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

William Kevin Glover petitions for a writ of prohibition, asking this court to prohibit

the district court from exercising jurisdiction over his criminal charges and ordering the

court to show cause why he should not be immediately released. We conclude that Glover

is not entitled to the relief he seeks. “[A] writ of prohibition is a drastic and extraordinary

remedy which should be granted only when the petitioner has shown [that] his right to the

writ [is] clear and undisputable[,] . . . that the actions of the court were a clear abuse of

discretion,” In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983), and that he has “no other

adequate means to attain the desired relief,” In re Sch. Asbestos Litig., 921 F.2d 1310, 1314

(3d Cir. 1990) (cleaned up). A writ of prohibition may not be used as a substitute for

appeal. In re Vargas, 723 F.2d at 1468; see United States v. Foster, 296 F.2d 249, 251 (4th

Cir. 1961). The relief sought by Glover is not available by way of a writ of prohibition.

Accordingly, we deny Glover’s petition. 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

Related

In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, Subpoena to Ray M. Vargas. Sangre De Cristo Community Mental Health Service, Inc. v. United States of America, Ray M. Vargas v. Santiago Campos, United States District Judge

723 F.2d 1461 (Tenth Circuit, 1983)

In Re School Asbestos Litigation. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly, Nominal and Barnwell School District No. 45, in Re School Asbestos Litigation. United States Gypsum Company v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly, Nominal and Barnwell School District No. 45, School District of Lancaster, Manheim Township School District, Lampeter-Strasburg School District, Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools, and a Conditionally Certified Class, in Re School Asbestos Litigation. Fibreboard Corporation v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly, Nominal and Barnwell School District No. 45, School District of Lancaster, Manheim Township School District, Lampeter-Strasburg School District, Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools, and a Conditionally Certified Class, in Re School Asbestos Litigation. W.R. Grace & Co. v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly, Nominal and Barnwell School District No. 45, School District of Lancaster, Manheim Township School District, Lampeter-Strasburg School District, Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools, and a Conditionally Certified Class

921 F.2d 1310 (Third Circuit, 1990)

United States v. Foster

296 F.2d 249 (Fourth Circuit, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In re: William Glover, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-william-glover-ca4-2024.