In re: Xaver Montez Boston, a/k/a Romeo, a/k/a Rome, a/k/a Ro

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2459
In re: XAVER MONTEZ BOSTON, a/k/a Romeo, a/k/a Rome, a/k/a Ro,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. (3:18-cr-00095-GCM-DCK-1)
Submitted: January 7, 2026 Decided: January 21, 2026
Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Xaver Montez Boston, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Xaver Montez Boston petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district
court has unduly delayed in acting on his initial and amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions to
vacate. He requests that this court issue a default judgment in his favor in the § 2255
proceeding, or—absent a default judgment—“remand this case for [an] evidentiary hearing
with instructions calling for a modified award in [his] punishment.” We conclude that
Boston 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 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown,
LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). 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 (citation modified). Further,
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 Boston is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we
deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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

-- 2 of 2 --