CLD-214 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-1888
___________
IN RE: AKILAH SHABAZZ,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Criminal No. 3-12-cr-00064-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
April 25, 2013
Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 21, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se petitioner, Akilah Shabazz, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to impose a sentence in
United States v. Shabazz, D.C. Criminal No. 3-12-cr-00064-001, in which he was found
guilty of aggravated identity theft and related offenses on November 7, 2012, and to rule
on his motion for release pending appeal, which was filed on January 28, 2013. By order
entered May 3, 2013, the District Court scheduled sentencing for Shabazz on May 21,
2013. Thus, Shabazz will obtain the remedy he seeks concerning sentencing. We are
confident that the District Court will rule on his motion for release pending appeal in due
course. Accordingly, we will deny the petition.1
1
Even if sentencing were not scheduled, we would still deny the mandamus petition.
Mandamus is a “drastic remedy” available in extraordinary circumstances only. In re:
Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). Mandamus may be
warranted when a district court’s delay in handling a case “is tantamount to a failure to
exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79. However, the delay complained of by
Shabazz is not tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Shabazz was found guilty
on November 7, 2012. The presentence investigation report was filed on January 30,
2013. On January 28, 2013, Shabazz filed a motion for release pending appeal and on
February 20, 2013, he filed objections to the presentence report. Because only two
months have passed since Shabazz filed his objections to the presentence report and three
months since the filing of his motion for release pending appeal, the delay “does not yet
rise to the level of a denial of due process.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79 (denying a
mandamus petition where the district court had not ruled on petitioner’s motion in four
months). See also United States v. Campisi, 583 F.2d 692 (3d Cir. 1978) (five month
delay between guilty plea and sentence was not “unreasonable” within the meaning of
Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)).
2