Texte intégral
HLD-145 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3023
___________
IN RE: OSSIE R. 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 Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
July 31, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed August 8, 2008 )
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM.
Ossie Robert Trader, a federal prisoner, petitions this Court for a writ of
mandamus ordering the District Court to rule on his “Motion to Dismiss Indictment for
Violation of the Speedy Trial Act,” which he filed in March 1995.
This is Trader’s fourth attempt to revive his Speedy Trial Act claims by petitioning
for a writ of mandamus. See, e.g., 226 Fed App’x 100; 161 Fed App’x 205. Once again,
we must reject his assertion that the motion has been pending since 1995. The District
-- 1 of 2 --
Any challenge to the guilty plea may not be brought in a petition for a writ1
mandamus.
Trader has also filed a “Motion Pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of2
Appellate Procedure Citation of Supplemental Authorities,” which may be construed as a
motion to supplement the mandamus petition. We grant the motion to supplement, but
note that the arguments raised therein do not establish that he is eligible for mandamus
relief.
2
Court docket sheet shows the motion was terminated due to Trader’s guilty plea. See also
Washington v. Sobina, 475 F.3d 162, 166 and n.5 (3d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (speedy
trial rights are waived by an unconditional and voluntary guilty plea).1
Because this is not a situation where the District Court has engaged in “undue
delay . . . tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74,
79 (3d Cir. 1996), we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.2
-- 2 of 2 --