Filed: Sep. 30, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2020
Summary: BLD-306 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 20-2286 _ IN RE: MARCUS WHITE, Petitioner _ On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to E.D. Pa. No. 2:10-cr-00420-001) _ Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. 21 on September 17, 2020 Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR., and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 30, 2020) _ _ OPINION* _ PER CURIAM Marcus White is serving an 804-
Summary: BLD-306 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 20-2286 _ IN RE: MARCUS WHITE, Petitioner _ On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to E.D. Pa. No. 2:10-cr-00420-001) _ Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. 21 on September 17, 2020 Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR., and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 30, 2020) _ _ OPINION* _ PER CURIAM Marcus White is serving an 804-m..
More
BLD-306 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 20-2286
___________
IN RE: MARCUS WHITE,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. No. 2:10-cr-00420-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. 21
on September 17, 2020
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR., and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 30, 2020)
____________________________________
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Marcus White is serving an 804-month prison sentence pursuant to convictions in
2011 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the Dis-
trict Court). The convictions stem from armed robberies of a post office and two conven-
ience stores in Pennsylvania followed by White’s arrest while driving a stolen vehicle in
Maryland. See generally United States v. White, 504 F. App’x 168 (3d Cir. 2012), as
amended (April 29, 2015).
Pending before us is White’s petition for a writ of mandamus, in which he argues that
the District Court and this Court lacked jurisdiction over his trial and interlocutory appeal
of an adverse suppression ruling, respectively. According to White, he should have been
prosecuted in Maryland state court, to which his criminal case should be remanded. See
Doc. 1-1 (mandamus petition) at 2; Doc. 6 (motion to remand). White refers to Maryland
v. Marcus White, Case No. 3E00440786 (Prince George’s County), where charges re-
lated to the stolen vehicle were nolle prossed after judgment was entered in the District
Court.
To the extent White is challenging his federal convictions or sentence, mandamus is
not the proper vehicle for doing so. He must instead seek authorization to file a second or
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
2
successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, under the procedures set forth in 28
U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244. See Samak v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium,
766 F.3d
1271, 1285 (11th Cir. 2014) (Pryor, J., concurring); cf. In re Dorsainvil,
119 F.3d 245,
251 (3d Cir. 1997) (explaining that inmate may not use habeas petition under § 2241
simply because he cannot meet AEDPA’s gatekeeping requirements for second or suc-
cessive habeas petitions). White should by now be familiar with those procedures. See,
e.g., In re White, C.A. No. 20-1588; In re White, C.A. No. 15-3489; and In re White,
C.A. No. 15-1727.
Insofar as White’s mandamus petition may be construed as something other than an
unauthorized collateral attack on his convictions or sentence, he fails to satisfy the stand-
ard for relief. Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of
circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,
418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005).
And no such circumstances are presented here. In particular, White’s alleged right to
have his criminal case in the District Court migrated to a closed, previously parallel pro-
ceeding in Maryland is far from “clear and indisputable.” Hollingsworth v. Perry,
558
U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam).
Accordingly, the mandamus petition will be denied. White’s separately filed—
though substantively identical—motion to remand is denied.
3