2011 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

12-1-2011 

# I n R e: N e zz y Adde r l

y
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 . 11-3921

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_2011

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 2011 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: N ez z y Adde rly " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 120. 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_2011/120

### BLD

- 039 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 1

- 3921

___________
IN RE: NEZZY ADDERLY , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus fr om the United States District Court for the East ern District of Pennsylvania (Related to E.D. Pa

. Crim. No. 2:06

- cr - 00548

- 001 )

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

November 10, 2011 Before: SCIRICA, SMIT H and CHAGARES Circuit Judges

( F iled : December 1, 2011 )

_________ OPINION OF THE COURT

_________ PER CURIAM

. In 2007 , Nezzy Adderly pleaded guilty to being a convicted felon in possession of a fire arm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced as an ar med career criminal to a mandatory minimum of one

- hundred eighty months of imprisonment

. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)

. We affirmed his judgment of conviction and sentence. C.A. No. 07

- 3753. In 2009 , Adderly filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , which the Di strict Court2



### denied as meritless. We denied a certificate of appeal ability. Adderly also filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied. We dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction on January 26, 2011 . C.A. No. 10

- 3791

. While his appeal of the District Cour t’s denial of his motion for reconsideration was pending , Adderly filed a motion to reopen in the District Court in November 2010. Adderly then filed a motion to amend his motion to reopen on March 14, 2011. On October 25 , 20 11 , Adderly filed a pro se manda mus petition with this Court, seeking to compel the District Court to rule on his motion to reopen

. Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). “A petitioner seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus must have no other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear a nd indisputable.” Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). Although we may issue a writ of m andamus when a district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden , 102 F.3d at 79, the manner in which the distric t court controls its docket is discretionary , see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig. , 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982)

. T he District Court has yet to rule on Adderly’s motion to reopen. However, we
conclude that this does not constitute a failure to exerci se jurisdiction

. W e are confident that the District Court will rule on Adderly ’s pending motion to reopen without further delay

. Acco rdingly, we will deny Adderly ’s mandamus petition

.