2006 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 8-29-2006 

# In Re: Jam al H ar t 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 . 06-2731

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

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 l l a nova 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 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: J am al H ar t " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 549. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/549BP S - 2 4 1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 06- 2731

____________ I N R E: J AM AL H AR T, Pet i t i oner

__________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om t he 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 C r i m i nal N o. 97- cr - 00021) Subm i t t ed U nderR ul e 21, Fed. R . A pp. Pr o.

J une 8, 2006 B efore: R E N D E L L , A M B R O and R O T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: A ugus t29, 2006)

_________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________________ P E R C UR I AM

J amal H ar tpet i t i ons t hi s C our tt o i s s ue a w r i tof m andamus or der i ng t he 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 to v a c a te h is j udgm entand s ent ence . W e w i l l denyH ar t ’ s pet i t i on.

A j u r yf o u n d Ha r tg u i l t yo f

p o s s e s s i n g a f

i r e a r m i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S . C. § 922( g) ( 1) . H e w as s ent ence d t o 188 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . T hi s C our taff i r m ed. See U n it ed S tat es v . H art, 1 7 5 F . 3 d 1 1 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T h e U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt deni ed H ar t ’ s pet i t i on forw r i tof ce r t i or ar i on O ct ober12, 1999. See H ar tv. U ni t ed2

St at es , 528 U . S. 945 ( 1999) . N ext , H ar tuns ucce s s ful l yat t empt ed t o col l at er al l yat t ack hi s s ent ence pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255.

In M a y2 0 0 6 , H a rt f

iled th is m a n d a m u s p e tit io n . H a rt a rg u e s th a t h is s ent ence w as i m pr oper l yenhanc ed under18 U . S. C . § 924( e) . Speci fi cal l y , H ar ts t at es t hathi s s ent ence vi ol at ed hi s Fi fth and Si xt h A m endmentr i ght s i n l i ghtof U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , deci ded J anuary12, 2005.

M andamus i s an appr opr i at e r emedyonl yi n t he mostextr aor di naryof s itu a tio n s . S p o rc k v . P e il, 7 5 9 F .2 d 3 1 2 , 3 1 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). T o ju s tif ys u c h a re m e d y , a pet i t i onerm us ts how t hathe has ( I ) no ot heradequa t e means of obt ai ni ng t he des i r ed r el i ef a nd ( i i ) a “c l earand i ndi s put abl e” r i ghtt o i s s uance of the w r i t . See H ai nes v. L ig g e tt G ro u p , In c ., 9 7 5 F .2 d 8 1 , 8 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 )(c iti n g K e rr v . U n ited S tate s D ist. C o u rt, 4 2 6 U .S . 3 9 4 , 4 0 2 (1 9 7 6 )). In th is c a se , B o o k e r d o e s n o t ap p lyre tro a c tiv e ly beca us e H ar t ’ s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal w el l befor e J anuary12, 2005. See Ll oy d v. U n ite d S ta te s , 4 0 7 F .3 d 6 0 8 , 6 1 5 -1 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).

F o r t h e s e re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e m a n d a m u s p e titio n .