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

10-13-2010 

# I n r e: T r evor D orsett

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 10-3026

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n r e: T r e v or D or s e tt " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 438. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/438

### HLD - 194 (August 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 10

- 3026

________________ IN RE: TREVOR DORSETT, P etitioner

____________________________________ On Petiti on for a Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands (Related to D. V.I. Crim. No. 06

- cr - 00029)

_____________________________________ Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

August 31, 2010 Before: MCKEE , C hief J udge , SCIRICA and WEIS, C ircuit J udges

( Filed : October 13, 2010)

____________ OPINION

____________ PER CURIAM.

Pro se petitioner, Trevor Dorsett, seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the United States D istrict Court for the District of the Virgin Islands to rule upon a motion he filed wherein he seeks to have his sentence corrected to eliminate what he considers to be an invalid two point enhancement. Finding no basis for granting mandamus relief, we wi ll deny the petition.2 

### The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. To justify the Court = s use of this remedy, a petitioner must demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ. Kerr v. United States District Court , 42 6 U.S. 394, 403 (1976); DeMasi v. Weiss , 669 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1982). Although an appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction, Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3rd C ir. 1996), the manner in which a court controls its docket is discretionary. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation , 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982), cert. denied , 459 U.S. 1156 (1983).

The District Court docket reflects that Dorsett = s motion to correct h is sentence was filed on March 9, 2010. That motion has been referred to a Magistrate Judge, as has Dorsett = s recently filed motion seeking an expeditious ruling. We cannot say that the delay Dorsett has experienced thus far (e.g., a little over five mon ths) is tantamount to the District Court = s failure to exercise its jurisdiction or that he has suffered substantial prejudice. We are confident that the District Court will take action on
Dorsett = s motion in the near future.

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. This denial is, of course, without prejudice to Dorsett = s right to seek mandamus relief if the District Court does not act on his motion within a reasonable time.