Terron Gerhard Dizzley, a state prisoner, petitions for a writ of mandamus. He asserts that his convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and requests an order compelling his immediate release from incarceration. We conclude that Dizzley is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires,” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted), and mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
The relief sought by Dizzley is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus, deny Dizzleys motion requesting “an answer on the merits” of his petition, and deny his motion for “an expedited hearing.” 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
PER CURIAM:
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.