Court Opinion

ID: 9368696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-06 19:00:26.885217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:10.169152
License: Public Domain

CLD-041                                            NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                  ___________

                                       No. 22-3038
                                       ___________

                              IN RE: DONTE PARRISH,
                                                Petitioner
                       ____________________________________

                      On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
           United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                        (M.D. Pa. Crim. No. 1:05-cr-00417-001)
                      ____________________________________

                      Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                   December 1, 2022

         Before: GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed: February 6, 2023)
                                        _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       Donte Parrish pleaded guilty to being in possession of a firearm related to drug

trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Classified as a “career offender,” Parrish

was subject to an advisory Guidelines sentencing range of 262 to 327 months of

imprisonment. The District Court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 180 months,

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
to run concurrent with a state sentence Parrish was serving. The District Court also

imposed a term of three years of supervised release.

       This Court affirmed Parrish’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See United

States v. Parrish, 287 F. App’x 990, 992 (3d Cir. 2008). Parrish’s first motion under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence was denied.

       Years later, we granted Parrish’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 for authorization

to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Counsel for Parrish then filed with the

District Court a “Joint Motion for a Reduction of Sentence.” In that motion, counsel

articulated the following agreement with the Government:

       ¶ 24. “In an effort to resolve all pending matters in this case, the parties
       have agreed that under these unique circumstances, Mr. Parrish should
       receive a reduction in his sentence to 167 months.”

       ¶ 25. “The parties agree that upon the imposition of a sentence of 167
       months, the pro se petition for writ of audita querela, and the counseled
       motion . . . under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, should be dismissed as moot and case
       number 1:16-C[V]-01363 should be closed.”

DC ECF No. 105 at 5 (docket citations omitted).

       The District Court granted the joint motion and reduced Parrish’s “previously

imposed sentence of imprisonment of 180 months . . . to 167 months.” DC ECF No. 106.

The District Court did so by order entered on January 29, 2020. An amended judgment

was entered that same day.1

1
  It appears that Parrish was released from federal prison on or about March 24, 2020, and
transferred to State custody at that time pursuant to a detainer from the Pennsylvania
                                              2
       Now, almost three years later, Parrish has filed a pro se petition for a writ of

mandamus. With that petition, Parrish: evinces a misunderstanding of the Court’s order

granting his § 2244 motion (and no other relief); demands that the Government respond

to the already-dismissed second-or-successive § 2255 motion; and challenges the District

Court’s amended judgment formalizing the negotiated sentence.2

       Mandamus is a “drastic remedy” reserved for “extraordinary circumstances,” In re

Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005)—circumstances that are

not presented in this case. Indeed, Parrish fails to make any of the required showings:

“that (1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s

right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under

the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Okereke v. United States, 307

F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002) (“Motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are the presumptive

means by which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences that are

allegedly in violation of the Constitution.”); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of

Board of Probation and Parole. Although Parrish indicates, as recently as mid-November
2022, that he is incarcerated at the York County Prison, he also asserts that he is on
supervised release, see Doc. 1-2 at 3, 5, pursuant to the District Court’s amended
judgment, see DC ECF No. 107. We need not resolve that apparent incongruity here.
2
  Parrish has also filed a “Motion to Proceed on the Original Record.” Inasmuch as
Parrish is simply requesting that his mandamus petition be considered in light of the
record in the District Court with respect to his federal criminal case, the motion is
granted.
                                              3
Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1422 (3d Cir. 1991) (recognizing the well-settled rule that

mandamus is not a substitute for the normal appellate process). Accordingly, the

mandamus petition will be denied.

                                            4