
    In re: Rudolph PRITCHETT, Petitioner.
    No. 05-4833.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 16, 2005.
    Decided: Dec. 1, 2005.
    Rudolph Pritchett, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Rudolph Pritchett petitions for writ of mandamus. He seeks an order from this court directing that the district court re-sentence him.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further,. mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979).

The relief sought by Pritchett is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, while we grant Pritchett’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED  