
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre Gerard LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant. In re Andre Gerard Lewis, Petitioner. In re Andre Gerard Lewis, Petitioner.
    Nos. 02-6403, 02-6851, 02-6925.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 25, 2002.
    Decided Aug. 14, 2002.
    Andre Gerard Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In No. 02-6403 Andre Gerard Lewis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for grand jury transcripts. Because we find Lewis failed to show a particularized need for the transcripts, see United States v. Chase, 372 F.2d 453 (4th Cir.1967), we affirm. We deny Lewis’ motions for an evidentiary hearing and for in camera review of the transcripts.

In No. 02-6851 and No. 02-6925 Lewis has filed petitions for writs of mandamus in this court. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to 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). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987), and it may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires” and that his right to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). Lewis has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny his petitions for writs of mandamus. We grant Lewis’ request to proceed in forma pauperis.

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.

No. 02-6403 — AFFIRMED.

Nos. 01-6951 & 01-6925 — PETITIONS DENIED. 
      
      
         We construe the petition requesting this court to review the sufficiency of the indictment and the grand jury proceedings as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because Lewis has not filed a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994), we dismiss this petition.
     