
    In re: Restoney ROBINSON, Petitioner.
    No. 04-6170.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 30, 2004.
    Decided: Aug. 5, 2004.
    Restoney Robinson, Petitioner pro se.
    
      Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Restoney Robinson petitions for writ of mandamus. He seeks an order vacating his conviction and awarding him damages from his former defense attorney. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the rehef sought and there are no other means by which the rehef sought could be granted. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). 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 rehef sought by Robinson is not available by way of mandamus. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED  