HLD-023 (October 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-3718
___________
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 E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 94-00534-002)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
October 29, 2010
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, and ALDISERT and WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 15, 2011)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Ossie Trader is a federal prisoner serving a 248-month sentence for armed bank
robbery and related crimes. This is at the least the seventh time, and the second in less
than two months, that Trader has sought to challenge his conviction by way of mandamus
in order to circumvent AEDPA‟s gate-keeping requirements for successive § 2255
motions. For the reasons just given in In re Trader, CA No. 10-3373 (3d Cir. Oct. 13,
1
2010), we will deny Trader‟s latest mandamus petition.1 We caution that another attempt
to raise the challenge rejected here will prompt us to initiate proceedings to enjoin such
repetitive filings.
1
We note for Trader‟s benefit that United States v. Carrasquillo, 667 F.2d 382 (3d
Cir. 1981), is not germane to the argument he makes in support of mandamus relief. In
Carrasquillo, we clarified what events in a criminal case would trigger the running of the
70-day Speedy Trial Act period. 667 F.2d at 384 (“When there is no [pre-indictment]
appearance because an information or indictment is the first step in a criminal case, then
postindictment arraignment will be the relevant „last occurring= date” for purposes of
assessing whether there has been a violation of the Speedy Trial Act.).
2