ALD-392 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-3399
___________
IN RE: CHRISTIAN DIOR WOMACK,
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. 2:13-cr-00206-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 25, 2016
Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 29, 2016)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Christian Dior Womack, a.k.a. Gucci Prada, pleaded guilty to charges of sex
trafficking of a minor and sex trafficking by force. We affirmed his judgment of
sentence. United States v. Womack, C.A. No. 14-4787, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6334, at
*1 (3d Cir. Pa. Apr. 7, 2016). Presenting a variation of an argument that we have rejected
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
before, he again asks us to issue a writ of mandamus to vacate his judgment of conviction
and sentence. Womack claims that his appointed counsel improperly sought and
accepted private funds as a retainer from Womack and that the District Court improperly
ratified counsel’s action when it terminated counsel’s appointment and allowed Womack
to privately retain counsel.
We will deny the petition. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v.
U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). A petitioner must ordinarily have no other
means to obtain the desired relief, and he must show a clear and indisputable right to
issuance of the writ. In re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 772 (3d Cir. 1992). As
we have explained to Womack previously, he cannot challenge the criminal judgment
against him through a petition for a writ of mandamus because mandamus is not a
substitute for appeal. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004);
Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
2