in Re: Aaron Cedric London v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 3d Cir. 1985 . A

DLD-408 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 07-3364
________________
IN RE: AARON CEDRIC LONDON,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 01-cr-00001-1E)
____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
September 27, 2007
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: October 15, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Aaron Cedric London was convicted in 2001 of bank robbery and
related charges for robbing the Northwest Savings Bank in Erie, Pennsylvania. We
denied his direct appeal in 2002, and a motion to vacate the conviction or sentence under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied in 2004. He did not seek a certificate of appealability from
this Court with respect to the denial of his § 2255 motion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
London has now filed a mandamus petition requesting that we dismiss the three
counts of the indictment, release him from federal custody and expunge his convictions.
He claims that the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate his criminal matters and
that the indictment was illegal. He claims that he has no other avenue of relief since he
did not appeal the denial of his § 2255 motion and he does not meet the criteria for filing
a second or successive motion under §§ 2244 and 2255.
A writ of mandamus will only issue under extraordinary circumstances. See
Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). A petitioner must establish that there is
no alternative remedy or other adequate means to obtain the desired relief, and the
petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Kerr v.
United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976).
London has not met the criteria here. A writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an
appeal. See In re Ford Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954, 957 (1997). London’s failure to appeal
from the denial of his § 2255 motion and his asserted inability to meet the criteria under
§§ 2244 and 2255 for filing a new motion do not present grounds worthy of this
extraordinary remedy. Furthermore, London has not shown a clear and indisputable right
to the relief sought. See Kerr, 426 U.S. at 403. London was charged under 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113, which defines “banks” as including “any member of the Federal Reserve System”
and “any institution the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.” Id., Subsection (f). London argues that because he was told that the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) does not insure deposits against theft,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the deposits he robbed from the bank were not insured by the FDIC, and the bank would
not qualify as a bank covered under the bank robbery statute. London’s jurisdictional
argument based upon this theory, his “constitutional”or standing arguments, or any other
basis presented in his memorandum completely lacks merit and fails to establish a clear
and indisputable right to the relief sought.
For the above reasons, we will deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a memorandum greater than 30 pages is granted. The
motions for counsel and oral argument are denied.

-- 3 of 3 --