Third Circuit disposition — 101202np-pdf

CLD-118 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 10-1202
IN RE: FREDERICK MULLINIX,
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. 05-cr-193-011)
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
February 12, 2010
Before: BARRY, FISHER and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 4, 2010)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Frederick Mullinix petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to
quash the indictment against him. For the reasons below, we will deny the petition.
On April 17, 2006, Mullinix was convicted of conspiracy to distribute controlled
substances, conspiracy to import controlled substances, conspiracy to introduce
misbranded drugs into interstate commerce, and money laundering. He was sentenced to
150 months in prison. Mullinix filed an appeal which is pending before this Court.

-- 1 of 2 --

In his mandamus petition, Mullinix challenges the authority of the Special
Assistant United States Attorney who represented the government in his criminal
proceedings. A writ of mandamus should be issued only in extraordinary circumstances.
See Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). Determining whether an
extraordinary circumstance exists requires a two-part inquiry. First, it must be established
that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate means of relief. Second, a petitioner
must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Kerr v. United States
District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). A writ is not a substitute for an appeal. In re
Kensington Intern. Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003). Because Mullinix can
challenge his criminal judgment on direct appeal, he has other adequate means of relief
and is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we will deny the petition.
2

-- 2 of 2 --