A s o f n o w , tr ia l is s c h e d u le d to c o m m e n c e o n S e p te m b e r 2 7 , 2 0 1 0 . 1 1 B L D - 242 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. 10- 2770

___________ I n r e : S HAHI YDUL L AH A. BI N R AYMOND

____________________________________ 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o W . D . Pa. C r i m . N o. 07- 00032)

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

J ul y9, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , C H A G A R E S and V A N A SK I E , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t2, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Shahi y dul l ah B i n R aym ond i s aw ai t i ng tr i al i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a on the s ol e cha r ge of be i ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a f ire a rm . S in c e b e in g g ra n ted lea v e to p ro c e e d w ith h is c rim in a l ca se p ro se , B in

1 R aym ond has fi l ed overfi ftypr etr i al m ot i ons i n the D i s tr i ctC our t . H e fi l ed the i ns t ant2

m andamus pe t i t i on on J une 11, 2010, s eeki ng an or derthatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtbe c o m p e lle d to a c t u p o n th re e o f th o s e p re tr ia l m o tio n s : a m o tio n to s u p p re s s e v id e n c e , a m o tio n in lim in e , a n d a “ m o tio n to tr a n s f e r t ri a l.” M andamus i s a dr as t i c r emedyavai l abl e onl yi n the mostextr aor di naryof circu m stan ce s. S ee In re D ietD rug s P rod s. L iab. L it ig., 4 1 8 F . 3 d 3 7 2 , 3 7 8 (3d C ir . 2005) . T o demonstr at e thatm andamus i s appr opr i at e, a pet i t i onerm us tes t abl i s h thathe has a “c l earand i ndi s put abl e” r i ghtt o i s s uance of the w r i t . M adden v. M y er s , 102 F. 3d 74, 79 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . A s a gene r al rul e, the manneri n w hi ch a c our tdi s pos es of ca s es on i t s docketi s w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on. See I n r e Fi ne PaperA nt i trus tL i t i g. , 685 F. 2d 810, 817 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 2 ). W h ile m a n d a m u s m a yb e w a rra n ted w h e re a d istric t co u rt’s d e lay i s t antam ou nt t o a fa i l ure t o ex erci se i t s j uri sdi ct i on , see M add en, 10 2 F . 3d at79 , this case d o e s n o t p re s e n t s u c h a s itu a tio n . W e fi rs tno t e that the D i stri ctC ou rtrul ed o n B i n R aym on d’s m oti on t o sup press o n Ju n e 2 5 , 2 0 1 0 . A s a re su lt, B in R a ym o n d ’s m a n d a m u s p e tit io n is m o o t in so f a r a s it conce rns the mot i on t o s uppr es s . B i n R aym ond’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne, how ever , w as fi l ed on N ovember16, 2009, and r emai ns pendi ng. B i n R aym ond’ s m ot i on t o tr ans fertr i al w as fi l ed on J une 11, 2010, the s ame dayhe fi l ed thi s m andamus pe t i t i on, and i tal s o r emai ns pen ding. N evertheles s, w e do no tfi nd anyaspectof the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s case m anage m entt o cons t i tut e a f ai l ur e t o exer ci s e i t s j ur i s di ct i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our thas h a n d l e d th e s t e a d ys tr e a m o f mo t i o n s a n d a p p l i c a t i o n s i n a l a u d a b l e f a s h i o n . I n d e e d , we3

ar e conf i dentthatthe D i s tr i ctC our tw i l l addr es s B i n R aym ond’ s pendi ng m ot i ons appr opr i at el yi n due cour s e. A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d e n yB in R a ym o n d ’s m a n d a m u s p e titio n .