in Re: Ossie Robert Trader v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 1976 2006 , should be applied to invalidate retroactively…

1
BLD-166 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-1336
________________
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 Crim. No. 94-cr-00534-2)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 22, 2007
BEFORE: MCKEE, FUENTES and WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: April 17, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Ossie Robert Trader, a federal inmate, petitions for a writ of mandamus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 requiring the District Judge to act on his Motion to Dismiss
for Violations of the Speedy Trial Act, which he filed in the District Court in March of
1995.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy granted only in extraordinary cases. See In
re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). The petitioner must

-- 1 of 2 --

1 Petitioner’s “Motion pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure Citation of Supplemental Authorities” is granted.
2
establish that she has “no other adequate means” to obtain relief and that she has a “clear
and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ, and the reviewing court must determine
that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Id. at 378-79.
This is Trader’s second attempt to revive his Speedy Trial Act claims by
petitioning for a writ of mandamus. On January 3, 2006, we denied his first petition
because his Motion to Dismiss had been terminated upon entry of his guilty plea and was
no longer pending. See C.A. No. 05-5225. In the instant petition, Trader asserts that the
United States Supreme Court’s decision in Zedner v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 1976
(2006), should be applied to invalidate retroactively the termination of his Motion to
Dismiss. This is a misreading of Zedner, which did nothing to undermine the validity of
Trader’s guilty plea or the termination of his Motion to Dismiss, and in any event, a
mandamus petition would not be an appropriate method for raising such a claim.
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.1

-- 2 of 2 --