# In re: Brown v.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · November 30, 2004 · 114 F. App'x 100

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1014887

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re: Patrick Furman BROWN, Petitioner
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 30, 2004
- **Citations:** 114 F. App'x 100
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Luttig, Gregory, Hamilton
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1014887

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7278

IN RE: PATRICK FURMAN BROWN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(CR-98-282; CA-03-2869-05)

Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 30, 2004

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Furman Brown, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Patrick Furman Brown petitions for writ of mandamus. He

seeks an order directing the district court to resentence him in

light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124

S. Ct. 2531 (2004).

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has

a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. &

Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus

is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S.

394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re

United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

The relief sought by Brown is not available by way of

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

- 2 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1014887. Public record. Not legal advice.