
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rigoberto HERNANDEZ-PORTILLO, a/k/a Tiny, a/k/a Carlos Antonio Martinez, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 12-6517.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 14, 2012.
    Decided: June 20, 2012.
    Rigoberto Hernandez-Portillo, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Nicole Gibson, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C.; Patrick Friel Stokes, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rigoberto Hernandez-Portillo seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for financial assistance of counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 387 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Hernandez-Portillo seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We also deny Hernandez-Portillo’s petition for mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir.2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought, In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988), which is not the case here. 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.

DISMISSED.  