C L D

- 0 6 1 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRC UIT

___________ No. 19

- 3690

___________ IN RE: NATHANIEL SWINT , Petitioner

________________________________ ____ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the Unite d St ates District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to Cr. No. 2

- 94

- cr - 00276 & Civ. No. 2

- 18

- cv - 04350 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed . R. App. P. D e c e m b e r 5 , 2 0 1 9 Before: J O R D A N , K R A U S E , a n d M A T E Y , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : December 17, 2019 )
OPINION *
PE R CURIAM Pro se petitioner Nathan iel Swint has filed a petit ion for writ of mandamus requesting that we direct the United States District Court for the Eastern Distr ict of Pennsylvania to either hold an evid entiary hearing o r grant his petition under 28 U. S.C. § 2241 and motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). For the reasons detailed below, we will deny the petition.

* This disposition is not a n opinion of the full Court and p ursuant to I.O. P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 In 1995, Swint was convicted of f our drug

- traffick ing charges under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846

. Based on th e drug quantity, drug type, and Swint’s two previous convictions, he was sentenced to the ma ndatory minimum sentence of life in prison. We affirmed his conviction and s entence on appeal. United S tates v. Swint , 127 F.3d 1097 (3d Cir. 199 7) (table)

. Swin t then sought relief under 2 8 U.S.C. § 2255, to no avail. See
Un ited States v. Swint , No. 9 8

- 5788, 2000 WL 987861 (E.D. Pa. July 17, 2000) ; United
States v. Swint , C .A. No. 00

- 350 1 (Oct. 29, 2001 order)

. Since then, Swint has continu a l l y filed motions in the District Court and this Court. On multiple occasions, we hav e warned Swint that furth er frivolous filings would result in sanctions, and on one occasion sanctioned him in the amount of $250. See United States v. Swint , 481 F. App’x 7 13, 714 (3d Cir. 2012) ( p e r c u r i a m ) ; United States v. Swi nt , 588 F. App’x 211, 212 (3d Cir. 2015) ( p e r c u r i a m ) ; United States v. Swint , C.A.
No. 12

- 4241 (April 3, 2013 order) . The District Court h as also “enjoined [Swint] from filing any motions of any ki nd related to Cri minal No. 94

- 276 in the future without first seeking leave of the Court .” E.D. Pa. Cr. No. 94

- cr - 000276, ECF No. 501. After Swint repeatedly violated that injunction, the D i s t r i c t Court sanctione d him a total of $250. In October 2018, Sw int filed a § 224 1 petition in the District Court, arguing that his sentence i s in valid under Burgess v. United States , 553 U.S. 124 (2008). See E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:18

- cv - 04350, ECF No. 2. The Di strict Court deni ed the petition both as procedurally barre d and as an unaut horized second or successive § 2255 motion, s ee ECF No. 5, and we denied a certificate of appealability, see Swint v. Warden Allenwood USP ,3 C.A. No. 19

- 1060 (June 25, 2019 order)

. Swint then filed a motion under Rule 60(b)(4), arguing tha t his sentence is invalid under 1 U.S.C. § 109. See ECF No. 15. That motion

rema ins pending. Swint has filed a mandamus petition in this Court, asking us to order the District
Court to either h ol d a hearing on or grant his § 2241 petition and his Rule 60 (b)(4) motion. H owever, to demonstrate that mandamus is appropriate, a petitioner must establish that h e has “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief requested, and that he has a “clear an d indisputable” rig ht to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Mye rs , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Swint cannot satisfy either requirement. He has no clear right to relief because we have already rejected the arguments that he raises in his § 2241 petition

a nd Rule 60(b)(4) motion. See Swint v. Warden Allenwood USP , C.A. No. 19

- 106 0 (June 25, 2019 order) (denying COA as to § 2241 petition); In r e Swint , 741 F. App’x 902, 902 n.2 (3d Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (rejecting Burgess argu ment ); United States v. Swi nt , 481 F. App’x 71 3, 714 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (reject ing § 109 argumen t). Moreover, Swint can obtain review of the District Court’s or ders

— and, in fact, has already done so with respect to the order disposing of his § 2241 petition

— through the

nor ma l appellate proce ss. See In re Kensington Int’l Ltd. , 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003) (“If, in effect, an appeal will lie, mandamus will no t.”) . Although the Di strict Court has not yet ruled on Swint’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion, t h i s i s n o t a c a s e i n w h i c h a d e l a y s u g g e s t s a f a i l u r e t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n , s e e M a d d e n , 1 0 2 F

. 3 d a t 7 9 , a n d we are confident that t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t wi ll r u l e o n t h e p e n d i n g m o t i o n in due course .4 Accordingly, Swint’s petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.