Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Moore, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Timothy Moore appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to challenge his resentencing. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that a writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy only available when no other options exist. As Moore could have directly appealed his resentencing but did not, he had an alternative avenue to seek relief and did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting mandamus. Therefore, the district court properly denied Moore's petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-06-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-7366

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Timothy Moore appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to challenge his resentencing. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that a writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy only available when no other options exist. As Moore could have directly appealed his resentencing but did not, he had an alternative avenue to seek relief and did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting mandamus. Therefore, the district court properly denied Moore's petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views2 pages

    United States v. Moore, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Timothy Moore appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to challenge his resentencing. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that a writ of mandamus is an extreme remedy only available when no other options exist. As Moore could have directly appealed his resentencing but did not, he had an alternative avenue to seek relief and did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting mandamus. Therefore, the district court properly denied Moore's petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 00-7366

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TIMOTHY ANTHONY MOORE, a/k/a Tim Allison,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-93-217)

    Submitted:

    May 31, 2001

    Decided:

    June 6, 2001

    Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Timothy Anthony Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy A. Moore appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his petition for writ of mandamus.

    A writ of mandamus is

    a drastic remedy and should be granted only in those extraordinary


    situations when no other remedy is available.
    F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
    stitute for appeal.
    (4th Cir. 1979).

    In re Beard, 811

    Mandamus may not be used as a sub-

    In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960


    Here, Moore could have appealed the district

    courts order resentencing him based on his assistance to the Government in criminal prosecutions.

    Because there was an alternate

    method for seeking the requested relief, and because Moore presents
    no extraordinary circumstances, the district court properly denied
    the petition. Accordingly, we affirm. See United States v. Moore,
    No. CR-93-217 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 6, 2000).

    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.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like