In re: Kenneth L. Otey, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1046
In re: KENNETH L. OTEY, JR.,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:20-cr-00137-REP-1)
Submitted: March 24, 2022 Decided: July 19, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Leon Otey, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth L. Otey, Jr. petitions for a writ of mandamus asserting that his speedy trial
rights were violated and that he received ineffective assistance when his counsel did not
seek to enforce his speedy trial rights. He seeks an order requesting dismissal of the
charges in his criminal case. We conclude that Otey 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). 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). 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 Otey is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we
deny the petition for writ of mandamus and deny Otey’s motion for appointment of counsel.
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 --