Case: 14-13267    Date Filed: 02/20/2015    Page: 1 of 2


                                                              [DO NOT PUBLISH]

               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                        FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                          ________________________

                                No. 14-13267
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                          ________________________

                   D.C. Docket No. 6:03-cr-00065-PGB-GJK-9


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                       versus

JOHN C. PATTERSON,

                                                               Defendant-Appellant.

                          ________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                         ________________________

                                (February 20, 2015)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

      John C. Patterson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his “Motion to Compel for Specific Performance of Plea

Agreement or Withdraw[a]l of Guilty Plea,” which he filed under the Mandamus
                 Case: 14-13267       Date Filed: 02/20/2015        Page: 2 of 2


Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Patterson claimed that the government breached a plea

agreement he signed in 2003. The district court denied relief, concluding that

Patterson was not entitled to mandamus because he had an adequate alternative

remedy to pursue his claim. 1 We affirm.

       We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a writ of

mandamus. See In re Stewart, 

, 1275 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).

Mandamus is appropriate only if, among other things, no other adequate remedy is

available. Cash v. Barnhart, 

, 1258 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).

Patterson had several remedies. He could have raised his breach-of-plea-

agreement claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Copeland, 

,

1104–05 (11th Cir. 2004). Or he could have raised it in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. See United States v. Al-Arian, 

, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008) (per

curiam). He did neither. For that reason, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying mandamus.

       AFFIRMED.




1
  The district court alternatively construed Patterson’s filing as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and
dismissed it as successive. Patterson has neither obtained a certificate of appealability on this
issue nor argued that it was error. We thus consider only the district court’s dismissal under
§ 1361.
                                                 2