In re: Muwsay Ibn Ibrahim Tulu

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1882
In re: MUWSAY IBN IBRAHIM TULU,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. (1:23-cr-00344-TDS-2)
Submitted: September 25, 2025 Decided: September 30, 2025
Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Muwsay Ibn Ibrahim Tulu, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Muwsay Ibn Ibrahim Tulu, who is currently awaiting sentencing in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order directing the district court to (1) conduct an evidentiary hearing on his
pending pro se motions and (2) dismiss the charges against him. We conclude that Tulu 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 and indisputable right” to the relief sought and “has no other
adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d at
795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, mandamus may not be used
as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).
We are satisfied that Tulu is not entitled to mandamus relief. As for Tulu’s request
that we direct the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his pending motions,
he has not shown that he has a clear and indisputable right to that relief. Additionally,
should the district court decline to conduct an evidentiary hearing on those motions, Tulu
may pursue that issue in an appeal from the criminal judgment. As to Tulu’s request that
we direct the district court to dismiss the charges against him, Tulu likewise has not shown

-- 2 of 3 --

3
a clear and indisputable right to that relief. And in any event, Tulu may pursue his
challenges to his conviction on appeal from the criminal judgment.*
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
* Tulu’s mandamus petition presents other arguments, including that his case should
be transferred to a different venue, that the district court erred in denying his motion to
withdraw his guilty plea, that the presentence report drafting process was defective, and
that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Tulu has not established a clear and
indisputable right to relief on those arguments. He also has other adequate means of
presenting those arguments. Indeed, Tulu makes many of those arguments in his motions
currently pending with the district court. In addition, Tulu may pursue those arguments on
appeal from the criminal judgment or in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

-- 3 of 3 --