ALD-118 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-1059
___________
IN RE: CONCETTA JACKSON,
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. 2-07-cr-00040-002)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
January 22, 2016
Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 28, 2016)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Concetta Jackson has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the District
Court to rule on a motion pending in her criminal case. We will deny the petition.
Jackson is serving a federal sentence of 300 months in prison imposed for her
conviction, by guilty plea, of using a minor to produce visual depictions of sexually
explicit conduct. Jackson’s victims included her four children, and her criminal judgment
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
includes a provision prohibiting her from having any contact with them.
As part of her plea agreement, Jackson waived the right to appeal or collaterally
challenge her sentence except in limited circumstances. She nevertheless filed a direct
appeal and a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We enforced the waiver in affirming on
direct appeal, and the District Court enforced the waiver in denying her § 2255 motion.
Jackson later filed two motions to vacate the “no contact” provision of her
judgment. The District Court denied those motions, and we affirmed the District Court’s
conclusions “that Jackson waived any challenge to her sentence and that her challenge is
meritless.” United States v. Jackson, 549 F. App’x 117, 118 (3d Cir. 2014) (per curiam).
Jackson has filed with the District Court another motion seeking to vacate the “no
contact” provision, this time seeking to “correct” that purportedly illegal provision of her
sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). The District Court docketed that motion on
August 19, 2015, and it remains pending.
Jackson now has filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District
Court to rule on that motion. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that we may grant
only when, inter alia, the petitioner has a “clear and indisputable” right to relief and we
are satisfied that “the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” In re Pressman-
Gutman Co., 459 F.3d 383, 399 (3d Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted). Mandamus
may be appropriate to compel a District Court to act when a delay in ruling is tantamount
to a denial of due process. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). The
delay in this case has not reached that level, however, and any concerns in that regard are
2
further limited because the District Court already has denied the relief that Jackson
requests and we already have affirmed its ruling. Nevertheless, and without expressing
any opinion on the merits of Jackson’s new motion, we are confident that the District
Court will rule on it in due course. We will deny Jackson’s petition because mandamus
is not warranted under these circumstances.
3