Case Name: IN RE: Christian Dior WOMACK, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-29
Citations: 668 F. App'x 437
Docket Number: No. 16-3399
Parties: IN RE: Christian Dior WOMACK, Petitioner
Judges: Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 437–437

Head Matter:
IN RE: Christian Dior WOMACK, Petitioner
No. 16-3399
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. August 25, 2016
(Opinion filed: August 29, 2016)
Christian Dior Womack, Pro Se.
Michelle Morgan, Esq., Melanie B. Wil-moth, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for Respondent.
Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Christian Dior Womack, a.k.a. Gucci Prada, pleaded guilty to charges of sex trafficking of a minor and sex trafficking by force. We affirmed his judgment of sentence. United States v. Womack, 646 Fed.Appx. 258, 259 (3d Cir. Pa. 2016). Presenting a variation of an argument that we have rejected before, he again asks us to issue a writ of mandamus to vacate his judgment of conviction and sentence. Womack claims that his appointed counsel improperly sought and accepted private funds as a retainer from Womack and that the District Court improperly ratified counsel's action when it terminated counsel's appointment and allowed Womack to privately retain counsel.
We will deny the petition. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). A petitioner must ordinarily have no other means to obtain the desired relief, and he must show a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ. In re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 772 (3d Cir. 1992). As we have explained to Womack previously, he cannot challenge the criminal judgment against him through a petition for a writ of mandamus because mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004); Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.