The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
23-1409•In re: Carissa Eugenia Brown
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1409
In re: CARISSA EUGENIA BROWN,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. (3:20-cr-00415-MOC-WCM-1)
Submitted: June 9, 2023 Decided: July 12, 2023
Before DIAZ. Chief Judge, RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carissa Eugenia Brown, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Carissa Eugenia Brown pled guilty to wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343,
and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. She is currently awaiting
sentencing. After determining that Brown violated the terms of her pretrial release, the
magistrate judge revoked her bond and ordered her detained pending sentencing.* Brown
now petitions for a writ of mandamus, requesting that this Court order her immediate
release. We conclude that Brown 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 [she] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (cleaned up). 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 Brown seeks is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
* This Court previously dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Brown’s appeal of the
magistrate judge’s order.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.