Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-17-2007
In Re: Ossie Trader
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1336
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Ossie Trader " (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1268.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1268
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BLD-166 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-1336
________________
IN RE: OSSIE ROBERT 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 Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 22, 2007
BEFORE: MCKEE, FUENTES and WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: April 17, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Ossie Robert Trader, a federal inmate, petitions for a writ of mandamus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 requiring the District Judge to act on his Motion to Dismiss
for Violations of the Speedy Trial Act, which he filed in the District Court in March of
1995.
Mandamus is a drastic remedy granted only in extraordinary cases. See In
re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). The petitioner must
1
establish that she has “no other adequate means” to obtain relief and that she has a “clear
and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ, and the reviewing court must determine
that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Id. at 378-79.
This is Trader’s second attempt to revive his Speedy Trial Act claims by
petitioning for a writ of mandamus. On January 3, 2006, we denied his first petition
because his Motion to Dismiss had been terminated upon entry of his guilty plea and was
no longer pending. See C.A. No. 05-5225. In the instant petition, Trader asserts that the
United States Supreme Court’s decision in Zedner v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 1976
(2006), should be applied to invalidate retroactively the termination of his Motion to
Dismiss. This is a misreading of Zedner, which did nothing to undermine the validity of
Trader’s guilty plea or the termination of his Motion to Dismiss, and in any event, a
mandamus petition would not be an appropriate method for raising such a claim.
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.1
1
Petitioner’s “Motion pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure Citation of Supplemental Authorities” is granted.
2