2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-8-2010

In Re: Omini Onen Williams

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-4485

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Omini Onen Williams " (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1913.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1913
CLD-091 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-4485

___________

IN RE: OMINI ONEN WILLIAMS,

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. Crim. No. 09-cr-00423-1)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

January 7, 2010

Before: BARRY, FISHER and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 8, 2010)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

In May 2009, Omini Onen Williams was arrested for allegedly possessing and

conspiring to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(B). The Government filed a motion seeking to detain Williams prior to trial. 

Following a pretrial detention hearing, a Magistrate Judge denied the Government’s

motion and ordered that Williams be released on $50,000 bail, subject to various

conditions. The Government appealed to the District Court, which determined that
2

Williams had failed to overcome the presumption that no condition or combination of

conditions would reasonably assure his appearance. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Williams

then filed a motion seeking review of the detention order, which the Government

opposed. The District Court denied the motion by order entered July 17, 2009. There

was no further action concerning Williams’ detention until November 19, 2009, when he

filed in this Court a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. We will deny the petition.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See In re Pasquariello, 16 F.3d

525, 528 (3d Cir. 1994). The petitioner must have no other adequate means to obtain the

relief desired and the petitioner must show a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ. 

See Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). In addition,

mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal; if a petitioner can obtain relief by an ordinary

appeal, a court will not issue the writ. See In re Ford Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954, 957 (3d

Cir. 1997). 

In this case, Williams had an alternate means to challenge the District Court’s

denial of his motion seeking review of the detention order. In particular, Williams could

have filed a notice of appeal. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) (providing that “[a]n appeal from a

release or detention order, or from a decision denying revocation or amendment of such

an order, is governed by the provisions of section 1291 of title 28”); Fed. R. App. P. 9(a)

(specifying documents that must filed with the court of appeals by a party appealing an

order regarding release or detention). We note that the time for filing an appeal from a
3

ruling on a detention order is governed by the 10-day limit set forth in Fed. R. App. P.

4(b)(1)(A). See United States v. Kolek, 728 F.2d 1280, 1281 (9th Cir. 1984). Williams

filed the mandamus petition approximately four months after the District Court denied his

motion seeking review of the detention order. Mandamus relief is not appropriate,

however, merely because a petitioner “allowed the time for an appeal to expire.” Oracare

DPO, Inc. v. Merin, 972 F.2d 519, 523 (3d Cir. 1992). 

Accordingly, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. We also deny

Petitioner’s “Motion for Counsel of Record to Withdraw,” which raises a matter that

would properly be adjudicated in the District Court.