2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-8-2010 

# In Re: O mini O ne n W

i lli ams P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-4485

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: Omini One n W

i ll i am s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1913. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1913C L D - 091 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 4485

___________ I N RE : O M I N I O N EN W I LLI A M S, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om the U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o E . D . Pa. C r i m . N o. 09- cr - 00423- 1)

____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d Pu r s ua ntt o Rul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

J anuary7, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , FI SH E R and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: February8, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM I n M ay2009, O m i ni O nen W i l l i ams w as arr es t ed foral l egedl ypos s es s i ng and co n sp ir ing to d istri b u te 10 0 g ram s o r m o re o f h ero in. Se e 2 1 U . S . C . § § 8 4 1 (a)(1), (b )( 1 )( B ). T h e G o v e rn m e n t f ile d a m o tio n s e e k in g to d e ta in W illia m s p ri o r t o tr ia l. F o ll o w ing a p retri al de tention h ea ri n g , a M ag istrate Ju d g e d en ied th e G o v ern m en t’ s m ot i on and or der ed thatW i l l i ams be r el eas ed on $50, 000 bai l , s ubj ectt o var i ous condi t i ons . T he G overnm entappea l ed t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w hi ch det erm i ned that2

W i l l i ams had fa i l ed t o over come t he pr es um pt i on thatno condi t i on orcombi nat i on of c o n d i t i o n s wo u l d r e a s o n a b l ya s s u r e h i s a p p e a r a n c e . S e e 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 1 4 2 ( e ) . W i l l i a ms t hen fi l ed a mot i on s eeki ng r evi ew of the det ent i on or der , w hi ch the G overnm ent o p p o sed . T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied th e m o ti o n b yo rde r en tered Ju ly1 7 , 2 0 0 9 . T h ere w as no fur t heract i on conce r ni ng W i l l i ams’ det ent i on unt i l N ovember19, 2009, w hen he fi l ed i n t hi s C our ta pr o s e pet i t i on fora w r i tof m andamus. W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. A w r i tof m andamus i s an extr aor di naryr emedy . See I n r e Pas quar i el l o, 16 F. 3d 525, 528 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . T he pet i t i onerm us thave no otheradequa t e means t o obt ai n t he re lie f d e s ir e d a n d th e p e titio n e r m u s t s h o w a “ c le a r a n d in d is p u ta b le ” ri g h t to th e w ri t. See K errv. U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our t , 426 U . S. 394, 403 ( 1976) . I n addi t i on, m an d am u s is no t a su b sti tute fo r an ap p ea l; if a p eti ti o n er c an o b tai n reli ef b yan o rdin ary appea l , a courtw i l l noti s s ue the w r i t . See I n r e For d M ot orC o. , 110 F. 3d 954, 957 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). In th is case , W il li am s h ad an alt ern ate m ea n s to c h all en g e the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n se e k in g re v iew o f th e d e ten tio n o rd e r. In p a rticu lar , W ill iam s c o u ld h a v e f i l e d a n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l . S e e 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 1 4 5 ( c ) ( p r o v i d i n g th a t“ [ a ] n a p p e a l f r o m a r el eas e ordet ent i on or der , orfr om a dec i s i on deny i ng r evoca t i on oramendm entof s uch an or der , i s governed byt he pr ovi s i ons of s ect i on 1291 of t i t l e 28”) ; Fed. R . A pp. P. 9( a) ( s peci fy i ng document s t hatm us tfi l ed w i t h t he courtof appe al s bya part yappea l i ng an o r d e rr e g a r d i n g r e l e a s e o rd e t e n t i o n ) . W e n o t e th a tth e t i me f o rf i l i n g a n a p p e a l f

r o m a3

rul i ng on a de t e nt i on or de ri s go ve r ne d b ythe 10 - da yl i mi ts e tfo r t h i n Fe d. R. A pp . P. 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) . S e e Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ko l e k , 7 2 8 F . 2 d 1 2 8 0 , 1 2 8 1 ( 9 t h Ci r . 1 9 8 4 ) . W i l l i a ms f iled th e m a n d a m u s p e tit io n a p p ro x im a telyf o u r m o n th s a f

ter th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied h is m ot i on s eeki ng r evi ew of the det ent i on or der . M andamus r el i ef i s notappr opr i at e, h o w ev er, m ere lyb ec au se a p eti ti o n er “ all o w ed the tim e f o r an ap p ea l t o ex p ir e.” O rac are D P O , In c . v . M e ri n , 9 7 2 F .2 d 5 1 9 , 5 2 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). A ccor di ngl y , t he pet i t i on fora w r i tof m andamus i s deni ed. W e al s o deny Pet i t i oner ’ s “M ot i on forC ouns el of R ecor d t o W i t hdr aw , ” w hi ch r ai s es a mat t erthat w o u ld p ro p e rlyb e a d

ju d ica ted in th e D istric t C o u rt.