In Re: Gennaro Rauso v. , 697 F. App'x 126 ( 2017 )

BLD-327 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-2589
___________
IN RE: GENNARO RAUSO,
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. 2-10-cr-00406-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 3, 2017
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR., and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 28, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Gennaro Rauso, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, petitions for a writ of
mandamus compelling the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania to consider his objections and response to the Government’s motion to
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
dismiss his amended motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the
reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
In 2010, Rauso pleaded guilty to equity skimming in violation of 12 U.S.C.
§ 1709-2, mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, access device fraud in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1029, bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and other crimes. He was
sentenced to 160 months’ imprisonment. We affirmed on direct appeal. We ruled that
the appellate waiver in Rauso’s plea agreement was enforceable and precluded the
arguments he had raised. United States v. Rauso, 548 F. App’x 36, 39 (3d Cir. 2013)
(non-precedential).
Rauso filed a motion in District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his
sentence. Rauso filed an amended motion and, in an order entered July 30, 2014, the
District Court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss the amended motion. The
District Court decided that Rauso had waived his right to present a collateral challenge to
his conviction and sentence under his plea agreement. On November 19, 2014, the
District Court denied Rauso’s motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
to alter, amend, or vacate the order of dismissal, and motion for leave to supplement his
amended § 2255 motion.
Rauso appealed the July 30, 2014 and November 19, 2014 orders. On March 3,
2015, we denied Rauso’s motion for a certificate of appealability. We ruled that jurists of
reason would not debate the District Court’s conclusion that Rauso’s claims are barred by
2
the waiver in his plea agreement, and that, in light of this conclusion, jurists of reason
would agree that the District Court did not err in denying Rauso’s motion to amend
and his Rule 59(e) motion. See C.A. No. 14-4729, 3/3/15 Order.
Rauso now seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the District Court to consider his
objections and response to the Government’s motion to dismiss his amended § 2255
motion. Rauso states that the District Court dismissed his amended § 2255 motion before
the time expired for filing, and before he submitted, his objections and response.
The writ of mandamus traditionally has been used “to confine an inferior court to a
lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when
it is its duty to do so.” In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135, 140 (3d Cir. 2000) (internal
quotation and citations omitted). “The writ is a drastic remedy that is seldom issued and
its use is discouraged.” Id. A petitioner must show that he has no other adequate means
to attain the desired relief and that the right to a writ is clear and indisputable. Id. at 141.
Rauso has not met this standard. To the extent Rauso complains that the District
Court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss his amended § 2255 motion without
considering his objections and response to the motion, Rauso had an adequate means to
attain relief via his appeal of the dismissal of his motion. Rauso has not shown that he
has a right to a writ as he essentially seeks to re-litigate his § 2255 proceedings.
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied.
3