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)
25-2478•In re: Meldamion Antoine Huguley
25-2478Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 17, 2026
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2478
In re: MELDAMION ANTOINE HUGULEY,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. (1:18-cr-00205-WO-1)
Submitted: March 12, 2026 Decided: March 17, 2026
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Meldamion Antoine Huguley, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Meldamion Antoine Huguley petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order
vacating his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) conviction, which he contends violates the Second and
Fourteenth Amendments. We conclude that Huguley 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 (citation modified).
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 Huguley is not available by way of mandamus. Furthermore,
to the extent that Huguley also suggests that the district court has unduly delayed ruling on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion that challenges the validity of the same conviction, our review
of the district court’s docket reveals that the court recently dismissed Huguley’s motion as
unauthorized and successive. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.