In re: Kelvin Andre Spotts, a/k/a Shorty

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1848
In re: KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS, a/k/a Shorty,
Petitioner.
On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. (3:00-cv-00647; 3:98-cr-00047-1)
Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: June 9, 2023
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kelvin Andre Spotts, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
In his original mandamus petition and first supplemental mandamus petition, Kelvin
Andre Spotts alleges that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for a
sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132
Stat. 5194, 5222, and on his emergency motion for immediate release. He seeks an order
from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket
reveals that the district court has granted this motion in part, along with his motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, because the district
court has recently decided Spotts’ motions, we deny his original and first supplemental
mandamus petitions as moot.
In his second supplemental mandamus petition, Spotts seeks an order from this
Court compelling the district court to amend its judgment. Mandamus is a drastic remedy
to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367,
380 (2004); In re Moore, 955 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir. 2020). Mandamus relief is available
only when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted and the
petitioner demonstrates “that he has a clear and indisputable right to that relief.” In re
Moore, 955 F.3d at 388 (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).
Because the relief sought by Spotts is not available by way of mandamus, we deny his
second supplemental mandamus petition. We also deny his motion to expedite the
decision.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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.
PETITIONS DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --