DLD-262                                                          NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                  ___________

                                       No. 17-1966
                                       ___________

                             IN RE: LARRY CHARLES,
                                                   Petitioner
                       ____________________________________

                      On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
           United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
            (Related to E.D. Pa Civ. Nos. 2-13-cv-07548 & 2-14-cv-00189)
                      ____________________________________

                    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                   May 25, 2017
           Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

                               (Opinion filed: June 14, 2017)
                                        _________

                                         OPINION*
                                         _________

PER CURIAM

       In this mandamus petition, Larry Charles “seeks an Order to compel the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to issue a Certificate of

Appealability” in connection with a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition he filed in 2013. Because

mandamus may “not be used as a substitute for the regular appeals process,” Cheney v.

U.S. Dist. Court, 

, 380–81, (2004), we will deny Charles’ petition.


*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
       Charles filed a § 2254 petition in 2013, seeking to attack a 25–50 year sentence

imposed after he pleaded no contest to various sex crimes in Philadelphia County. The

District Court denied his petition and his request for a certificate of appealability. We

denied his request for a certificate of appealability—concluding that “jurists of reason

would not debate the District Court’s assessment of his constitutional claims”— and also

denied his request for rehearing. C.A. No. 15-3064. The Supreme Court denied his

petition for a writ of certiorari, and also his petition for rehearing. Charles v. Harry, 

, reh’g denied, 

(2017).

       Charles has exhausted all avenues to appeal the District Court’s denial of his

request for a certificate of appealability—and has lost. He may not now use mandamus

as yet another attempt at an appeal. 

–81. We will deny his

petition.1




1
 In the alternative, Charles asks us to recall our mandate denying his request for a
certificate of appealability—a request that is “regarded as a second or successive
application for purposes of [28 U.S.C.] § 2244(b).” Calderon v. Thompson, 

, 553 (1998). Because Charles cannot meet § 2244(b)’s gatekeeping requirements—
he does not claim to have newly discovered evidence of his actual innocence, or rely on a
new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review—we will
not recall our mandate. See United States v. Winkelman, 

, 135 (3d Cir.
2014).
                                               2