Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Sutton, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views3 pages
    The document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding two cases, Nos. 02-7422 and 02-7563, involving Barbara Sutton. In case No. 02-7422, the court dismisses Sutton's appeal of the denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, finding that she failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. In case No. 02-7563, the court denies Sutton's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing, as mandamus is a drastic remedy only available in extraordinary circumstances, which Sutton did not establish.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-02-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7422

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding two cases, Nos. 02-7422 and 02-7563, involving Barbara Sutton. In case No. 02-7422, the court dismisses Sutton's appeal of the denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, finding that she failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. In case No. 02-7563, the court denies Sutton's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing, as mandamus is a drastic remedy only available in extraordinary circumstances, which Sutton did not establish.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views3 pages

    United States v. Sutton, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding two cases, Nos. 02-7422 and 02-7563, involving Barbara Sutton. In case No. 02-7422, the court dismisses Sutton's appeal of the denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, finding that she failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. In case No. 02-7563, the court denies Sutton's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing, as mandamus is a drastic remedy only available in extraordinary circumstances, which Sutton did not establish.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-7422

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BARBARA SUTTON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
    Judge. (CR-90-432-A, CA-02-539-A)

    No. 02-7563

    In Re:

    BARBARA SUTTON,
    Petitioner.

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

    Submitted:

    January 23, 2003

    (CR-90-432-A)

    Decided:

    February 12, 2003

    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    No. 02-7422, dismissed and No.


    unpublished per curiam opinion.

    02-7563

    petition

    denied

    by

    Barbara Sutton, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Frederickson, OFFICE OF


    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    In action No. 02-7422, Barbara Sutton seeks to appeal the
    district courts order denying her 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude for the
    reasons stated by the district court that Sutton has not made a
    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    See

    United States v. Sutton, CR-90-432-A (E.D. Va., Sept. 10, 2002).


    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal.
    In

    See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) (2000).


    action

    No.

    02-7563,

    Sutton

    petitions

    for

    writ

    of

    mandamus, seeking an order compelling the district court to appoint


    her counsel and grant her an evidentiary hearing.

    Mandamus relief

    is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the


    relief sought.

    In re: First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn, 860 F.2d 135,

    138 (4th Cir. 1988).

    Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only

    in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,


    426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re: Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir.
    1987).

    Sutton has not established a basis for mandamus relief.

    Although we grant Suttons pending motion for 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 in the decisional process.
    No. 02-7422 - DISMISSED
    No. 02-7563 - PETITION DENIED
    3

    You might also like