Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-31-2005
In Re: Amin Rashid
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-1747
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Amin Rashid " (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1109.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1109
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HPS-94 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 05-1747
________________
IN RE: AMIN A. RASHID,
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. Civ. No. 93-cr-00264)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 29, 2005
BEFORE: SCIRICA Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
FILED May 31, 2005
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Pro se petitioner Amin Rashid seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to rule on his motion
for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Rashid was convicted in 1993 of
mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering in connection with his involvement in
fraudulent commercial loan schemes. Rashid was sentenced to 168 months in prison and
was ordered to pay restitution of $1,696,470 to his victims. We affirmed the judgment of
conviction and sentence on August 4, 1995 in United States v. Rashid, C.A. No. 93-2241.
On April 6, 2004, Rashid filed a motion in the District Court for a reduction
of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), relying on two amendments to the
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (Amendments 591 and 607). Rashid has filed this mandamus
petition seeking to compel the District Court to rule on his motion.
The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which is justified only in
the presence of exceptional circumstances. Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S.
394, 402 (1976). In order to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances, a
petitioner must show that he has no other adequate means of obtaining relief and that he
has a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ. Id. at 403. In an order entered
April 1, 2005, the District Court denied Rashid’s motion for reduction of sentence. In
light of the District Court’s order, Rashid’s petition for a writ of mandamus will be
denied as moot.