Abraham Nee Ntreh v. , 487 F. App'x 49 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • GLD-299                                             NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 12-3634
    ___________
    In Re: ABRAHAM NEE NTREH,
    Petitioner
    ____________________________________
    On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
    United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands
    (Related to D.C. Crim. No. 1:02-cr-00007-001)
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
    September 27, 2012
    Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR., and BARRY, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: October 4, 2012)
    _________
    OPINION
    _________
    PER CURIAM
    We discussed the unusual background of Ntreh’s criminal case in a previous
    opinion, see In re Ntreh, 401 F. App’x 686 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam), and will
    not repeat ourselves here. According to his mandamus petition, in March 2012
    Ntreh formally waived his right to be present during his resentencing; having now
    provided such a waiver, Ntreh argues that our intervention is necessary to ensure
    his resentencing. To the contrary: the District Court docket reflects that Ntreh’s
    pending motions, including his request to set a firm sentencing date (the last of
    which was scheduled for February 2012, but was continued), will be heard at an
    omnibus hearing to take place in December 2012. 1 It appears that the District
    Court intends to exercise its jurisdiction in due course, see In re Patenaude, 
    210 F.3d 135
    , 140 (3d Cir. 2000), and we detect no other extraordinary factors that
    would suggest that mandamus relief is warranted at this time. See Birdman v.
    Office of the Governor, 
    677 F.3d 167
    , 174 (3d Cir. 2012). Accordingly, Ntreh’s
    petition for mandamus will be denied, without prejudice to his renewing the
    request should the delay in District Court become newly protracted. See Madden
    v. Myers, 
    102 F.3d 74
    , 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
    1
    The December date is due to the assigned District Judge being on medical leave. We
    note that this scheduling order was entered after Ntreh filed his mandamus petition, so he
    would not have been aware of it at the time.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-3634

Citation Numbers: 487 F. App'x 49

Judges: Barry, Fuentes, Greenaway, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 10/4/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023