Case Name: In Re: Darrel RIVIERE, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-13
Citations: 403 F. App'x 691
Docket Number: No. 10-4074
Parties: In Re: Darrel RIVIERE, Petitioner.
Judges: Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 403
Pages: 691–692

Head Matter:
In Re: Darrel RIVIERE, Petitioner.
No. 10-4074.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Nov. 24, 2010.
Opinion filed: Dec. 13, 2010.
Darrel Riviere, Salters, SC, pro se.
U.S. Atty., SC, Office of United States Attorney, Christiansted, VI, for Defendant-Respondent.
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Darrel Riviere, a prisoner incarcerated at FCI Williamsburg proceeding in forma pauperis, petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court to issue trial transcripts for use in a collateral attack on his conviction and sentence. For the following reasons, we will deny the petition.
Riviere is serving a 360-month term for Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. See United States v. Riviere, 185 F.3d 864 (3d Cir.1999) (table). In his instant petition, he alleges that the District Court's failure to provide transcripts thwarted his various attempts to seek relief based on counsel's alleged ineffectiveness at sentencing. He argues that "failure to receive the sentencing transcript was prejudicial" to his attempt to raise a Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(3)(B) violation on direct appeal, and weakened the motion he filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He thus asks that we "[cjompel the District Court of the Virgin Islands to . [pjrovide [him] with a copy of [his] Sentencing Transcript" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.
Mandamus is reserved for "extraordinary situation[s]." Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). It is "not to be used as a substitute for appeal," Schla genhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 110, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964), and is especially disfavored when its use "threaten[s] the [congressional] policy against piecemeal appeals," see In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214, 226 (3d Cir.1998) (citations omitted). We therefore require a party seeking mandamus to show 1) that he has no other adequate means of obtaining the desired relief and 2) that his right to issuance is "clear and indisputable." Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.1996). Expiration of appellate rights, however, does not necessarily suffice to show a lack of alternative forms of relief. See Oracare DPO, Inc. v. Merin, 972 F.2d 519, 523 (3d Cir.1992) ("[W]e will not hold that [petitioner] now lacks adequate alternative means to obtain the relief he seeks simply because he allowed the time for an appeal to expire.").
Riviere can make neither showing. To the extent that the District Court failed to provide transcripts in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action, he should have raised the matter on appeal. However, he did not pursue an appeal, and the time to do so has long since expired. See Riviere v. United States, No. 05-2299 (3d Cir. Aug. 16, 2005) (dismissing untimely notice of appeal filed after serial motions for reconsideration). Accordingly, we will deny Riviere's petition.
. Riviere acknowledges the existence of a June 23, 1997 Order granting transcripts, but claims they were never received — and, alternatively, says that he was sent the sentencing transcripts of a co-defendant by mistake.
. The § 2255 motion was denied in September of 2001. See Memorandum Denying § 2255 Petition, Riviere v. United States, No.2000/0116 (filed Sept. 25, 2001).