ALD-075 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-3485
___________
In re: CHRISTOPHER RAD,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to D.N.J. Crim. No. 3:11-cr-00161-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 14, 2017
Before: MCKEE, VANASKIE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed March 6, 2018)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Christopher Rad is serving a sentence of 71 months in federal prison pursuant to
convictions for, inter alia, violations of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited
Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003. See United States v. Rad, 559 Fed. App’x 148
(3d Cir. 2014). By order entered October 25, 2017, the District Court denied or dismissed
various post-verdict motions filed by Rad, who then appealed the District Court’s
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
October 25, 2017 order to this Court. See CA No. 17-3418. That appeal is currently
pending.
Rad has now filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking the very relief
he sought in some of the motions that are the subject of his pending appeal. For that
reason alone, the instant mandamus petition is inappropriate and will be denied. See
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (explaining that a
mandamus petitioner must show, inter alia, that “no other adequate means [exist] to attain
the relief he desires”); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d
1414, 1422 (3d Cir. 1991) (“Another prerequisite for mandamus jurisdiction emanates
from the final judgment rule: mandamus must not be used as a mere substitute for
appeal.”).
2