Third Circuit disposition — 052957np-pdf

BPS-306 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-2957
________________
IN RE: OSSIE ROBERT TRADER,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 94-cr-00534-2)
District Judge: Michael M. Baylson
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
July 14, 2005
Before: RENDELL, FISHER AND VAN ANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: July 29, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Ossie Robert Trader pled guilty to bank robbery and use of a weapon during a
crime of violence, for which he is serving consecutive terms of 188 months’ and 60
months’ imprisonment respectively. After this Court affirmed, Trader sought relief by
filing in the District Court a section 2255 motion, an unauthorized second section 2255

-- 1 of 3 --

2
motion, as well as other motions, all without success. Trader has now filed a petition for
a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to order his release. He alleges that the
District Court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him because the United States
did not prove that the banks in question were insured by the F.D.I.C.
I
Issuance of a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, Sporck v. Peil, 759
F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985), whose purpose is “to confine an inferior court to a lawful
exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its
duty to do so.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943). It is not
available to control decisions of a District Court, even if erroneous, so long as they were
made within the court’s jurisdiction. United States v. Rankin, 779 F.2d 956 (3d Cir.
1986). Moreover, a writ of mandamus will not issue unless the petitioner has no other
adequate means to attain the desired relief and shows that he has a clear and indisputable
right to the relief. See Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).
Trader satisfies none of these criteria. Although he alleges that the District Court
lacked jurisdiction, a bank’s F.D.I.C. status is merely an element of the crime and does
not affect the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d
957 (9 Cir. 2003). Moreover, Trader had other means to present his argument: directth

-- 2 of 3 --

Indeed, Trader may already have used those very means: he states that “[t]his Court1
failed to notice the jurisdictional error on direct appeal” and that “[t]he United States
failed to rebut the jurisdictional claim during post conviction proceedings.”
3
appeal and collateral review. The fact that he is now barred by AEDPA’s restrictions on1
filing successive section 2255 motions no more makes mandamus an available remedy
than it does a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245
(3d Cir.1997). Accordingly, Trader’s petition is denied.

-- 3 of 3 --