In re: Roger Stone, Jr. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •  United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    Decided October 22, 2019
    No. 19-3054
    IN RE: ROGER JASON STONE, JR., ET AL.,
    PETITIONERS
    On Petition For Writ of Mandamus
    (1:19-cr-00018)
    Bruce Rogow and Robert C. Bushcel were on the petition
    for writ of mandamus and the reply.
    Jessie K. Liu, U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Trosman and David
    B. Goodhand, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and Adam C. Jed,
    Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, were on the opposition to the
    petition for a writ of mandamus.
    Before: MILLETT, PILLARD, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
    Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKINS.
    WILKINS, Circuit Judge: Roger Stone and members of his
    family petition this Court for a writ of mandamus vacating the
    District Court’s orders modifying Stone’s conditions of
    release, arguing that the orders infringe on their First
    Amendment right to free speech. Where a mandamus
    petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy, however, we
    lack jurisdiction to grant the petition. In re Asemani, 
    455 F.3d
                                   2
    296, 299-301 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (dismissing mandamus petition
    for lack of jurisdiction). Here, because Stone and his family
    members failed to avail themselves of adequate alternative
    remedies, we dismiss their petition.
    I.
    Roger Stone is a political consultant who has worked in
    U.S. politics for decades. During the 2016 presidential
    campaign, Stone served as an official for then-candidate
    Donald J. Trump’s campaign. On January 24, 2019, a grand
    jury returned a seven-count indictment charging Stone with:
    one count of obstruction of proceedings, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1505
     and 2; five counts of false statements, in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1001
    (a)(2) and 2; and one count of
    witness tampering, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1512
    (b)(1). The
    indictment, signed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, alleges
    that Stone obstructed investigations by Congress and the FBI
    into foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election.
    Specifically, the indictment alleges that Stone tried to block
    inquiries into his communications with an organization that
    published files stolen by Russian hackers from the Democratic
    National Committee’s computer system. Federal agents
    arrested Stone, and Stone pleaded not guilty to the charges on
    January 29, 2019. He was released on personal recognizance,
    subject to limited conditions, including travel restrictions and a
    prohibition on communicating with witnesses disclosed by the
    government.
    During the initial status conference, the District Court
    explained that the case had received “considerable publicity,
    fueled in large part by extrajudicial statements of the defendant
    himself.” A.41. As such, the Court advised the attorneys that
    it was considering issuing an order under Local Criminal Rule
    57.7(c), which governs special orders restricting, among other
    3
    things, “extrajudicial statements by parties, witnesses and
    attorneys likely to interfere with the rights of the accused to a
    fair trial by an impartial jury.” D.D.C. LCrR 57.7(c). The
    Court directed the parties to file submissions on the appropriate
    scope of such an order.
    On February 15, 2019, after receiving input from the
    parties, the Court entered the Rule 57.7(c) order. In its order,
    the Court explained its obligation to prevent improper
    influence on the jury pool and the possibility that “public
    pronouncements” may “inflame” the large and “vociferous[]”
    crowds that had been attending the proceedings. A.52. To that
    end, the Court first ordered that “Counsel for the parties and
    the witnesses must refrain from making statements to the media
    or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of
    material prejudice to this case.” A.53. This part of the order
    applied only to the attorneys. The second part of the order
    applied to all participants in the case, but it applied only to
    statements made in or around the courthouse:
    [A]ll interested participants in the matter,
    including the parties, any potential witnesses,
    and counsel for the parties and the witnesses,
    must refrain, when they are entering or exiting
    the courthouse, or they are within the immediate
    vicinity of the courthouse, from making
    statements to the media or to the public that
    pose a substantial likelihood of material
    prejudice to this case or are intended to
    influence any juror, potential juror, judge,
    witness or court officer or interfere with the
    administration of justice.
    A.53-54. The order imposed no conditions on Stone’s public
    remarks beyond the immediate vicinity of the courthouse, but
    4
    clarified that the order “may be amended . . . if necessary.”
    A.54. The order also advised that, in deciding whether to grant
    “any future request for relief based on pretrial publicity,” the
    Court would consider “the extent to which the publicity was
    engendered by the defendant himself.” 
    Id.
    Three days later, on February 18, 2019, Stone posted an
    image on his Instagram account depicting the District Court
    judge in this case with crosshairs next to her head, alongside
    inflammatory commentary in which he accused her of bias.
    That same day, he removed the post and filed a “Notice of
    Apology,” apologizing to the Court for “the improper
    photograph and comment posted on Instagram today.” A.55.
    Stone himself signed the filing, but later admitted that he did
    not write it and had “signed it on the advice of counsel.” A.57,
    75. Even after taking the post down, however, Stone did a
    media interview later the same day in which he continued to
    accuse the judge of bias. The day after the post went up and
    came down, the District Court ordered Stone to show cause
    why its February 15, 2019 order and/or Stone’s conditions of
    release should not be modified or revoked in light of his
    Instagram post, and set a hearing on the matter for February 21,
    2019.
    At the hearing, Stone apologized directly to the Court,
    recognizing that he had “abused the latitude” the Court gave
    him and blaming his “stupid lapse of judgment” on “emotional
    stress.” A.69, 87. Stone stated he could “offer no excuse for
    [the post].” A.69. When the Court asked Stone whether he
    understood “that the posting could be viewed as a threat to the
    Court,” Stone replied, “I now realize that. That was not my
    intention.” A.70. Stone explained that he believed that the
    crosshairs were actually a “Celtic cross” or a “Celtic occult
    symbol,” the same explanation he had provided to media
    reporters shortly after posting the image. A.70, 74, 85. Stone
    5
    also testified that, while he posted the image, he “did not select
    the image.” A.69, 77-78. According to Stone, one of the “five
    or six” people who “volunteer” for him selected the image, and
    Stone decided to post it. A.78-79, 88. However, when pressed
    for the name of this volunteer, Stone could not remember who
    had sent him the image.
    At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court declared that it
    “d[id] not find any of [Stone’s] evolving and contradictory
    explanations credible” and that Stone had made “deliberate
    choices” to “express himself in a manner that can incite others
    who may feel less constrained,” which “posed a very real risk
    that others with extreme views and violent inclinations would
    be inflamed.” A.102. In addition, the Court noted that its
    initial order imposed no restrictions on Stone’s speech beyond
    the courthouse and that it took Stone just “three days” to abuse
    that trust. A.104-05. The Court found that Stone’s post had
    “the effect and very likely the intent” to “denigrate th[e
    judicial] process and taint the jury pool.” A.109. The Court
    further found that Stone’s apology “r[ang] quite hollow,” given
    that he “continued to adamantly defend the post, even after he
    took it down, thereby enhancing the risk that it would appeal to
    and stoke the passions of an angry crowd[.]” A.104.
    Consistent with these findings, the Court decided to
    modify the conditions of Stone’s pretrial release. Before doing
    so, it asked counsel for Stone how to “craft an order that [Stone]
    would find clear enough to follow[.]” A.98. Counsel for Stone
    suggested an order that Stone not “talk[] about this Court” or
    the special prosecutor and that he not “impugn[] the integrity
    of the Court” or the government. A.98-99.
    The District Court modified the conditions of Stone’s
    pretrial release in a minute order the same day:
    6
    [T]he conditions of defendant’s pretrial release
    are hereby modified to include the condition
    that, and the February 15, 2019 media
    communications order is hereby modified to
    provide that, the defendant is prohibited from
    making statements to the media or in public
    settings about the Special Counsel’s
    investigation or this case or any of the
    participants in the investigation or the case. The
    prohibition includes, but is not limited to,
    statements made about the case through the
    following means: radio broadcasts; interviews
    on television, on the radio, with print reporters,
    or on internet based media; press releases or
    press conferences; blogs or letters to the editor;
    and posts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or
    any other form of social media. Furthermore,
    the defendant may not comment publicly about
    the case indirectly by having statements made
    publicly on his behalf by surrogates, family
    members, spokespersons, representatives, or
    volunteers.
    A.107-08, 114-15 (“February 21, 2019 order”).
    The gist of the February 21, 2019 order was that, beyond
    soliciting funds for his legal defense or maintaining his general
    innocence, Stone was not to discuss the case in any way. As
    the District Court explained, Stone could “send out as many
    emails, Tweets, posts as [he] choose[s] that say, [‘]Please
    donate to the Roger Stone defense fund to help me defend
    myself against these charges[’]” and could add that he is
    “innocent of the charges.” A.108. The Court made clear,
    however, that Stone was permitted to speak publicly about “any
    other matter of public interest,” so long as he refrained from
    7
    any specific discussion about the case or the people involved
    in it. 
    Id.
     The Court declared that, under the Bail Reform Act,
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3142
    (c)(1) and (3), and Gentile v. State Bar of
    Nevada, 
    501 U.S. 1030
     (1991), these conditions were
    necessary and were the least restrictive means available to
    prevent “material prejudice to the case and the due
    administration of justice.” A.105-09. The Court also advised
    Stone that “any violation of this order will be a basis for
    revoking [his] bond and detaining [him] pending trial.” A.109.
    Neither Stone nor any of his family members challenged
    the February 21, 2019 order in the District Court in any way or
    sought direct review of it from this Court.
    About four months later, the Court learned that Stone had
    violated the February 21, 2019 order in various ways. On June
    20, 2019, the government moved for an order to show cause
    why the Court should not modify further the conditions of
    Stone’s release, citing numerous examples of Stone’s
    communications it believed violated the February 21, 2019
    order. These communications include, among others, an
    Instagram post on March 3, 2019, with the title “who framed
    Roger Stone,” A.125, 192-93; an Instagram post on April 4,
    2019 featuring a headline about Stone’s arrest, with
    commentary from Stone asking what “could [the FBI] possibly
    be hiding,” A153 n.1, 162; an Instagram post on May 16, 2019
    stating that Stone had “challenged the entire ‘Russians hacked
    the DNC/CrowdStrike’ claim by the Special Counsel,” A.153
    n.1, 164; and a text message in late February from Stone to
    Buzzfeed News stating that – contrary to testimony before
    Congress by President Trump’s former attorney Michael
    Cohen (a potential witness in the case against Stone) – Stone
    had not told then-candidate Trump about his communications
    with anyone seeking to interfere in the election on Trump’s
    8
    behalf, see A190-92. The government did not ask the Court to
    hold Stone in contempt or to revoke his bond.
    Stone responded to the motion, calling it a
    “disproportionate reaction” to his exercise of First Amendment
    rights and claiming that the government sought to “deprive
    [him] of the narrow latitude the Court left him[.]” A.170.
    Stone argued that the examples cited by the government either
    involved Stone’s reposting articles or graphics originally
    produced by others, which did not constitute statements by
    Stone himself, or were mere “rhetorical question[s]” that were
    not “statements” about the case. A.170-75.
    The District Court held argument on the motion at a
    hearing on July 16, 2019 and ultimately concluded that Stone
    had violated its clear instructions not to publicly discuss his
    case in any way. The Court found that “[i]t didn’t take a week”
    after the February 21, 2019 order for Stone to contact a news
    outlet to “call[] a witness in this investigation a liar.” A.218.
    The Court also found that, while some of the social media posts
    “were initially statements made by other people,” Stone
    “posted and disseminated them himself again on his own
    Instagram feed, under his own name, to his own followers,”
    thereby “spreading it with his imprimatur.” A.220-21. Stone’s
    “obvious purpose,” the Court found, was “to gin up more
    public comment and controversy about the legitimacy of the
    Mueller investigation and the House investigation to get people
    to question the legitimacy of this prosecution.” A.222. Based
    on these clear violations, the Court explained that it was
    “obvious” that Stone was either unable to “differentiate
    between the very broad range of speech” he was entitled to and
    speech that was prohibited under his conditions of release, or
    he was simply refusing to comply with them. A.223.
    9
    Because Stone had shown himself “unwilling to stop
    talking about the investigation” despite the Court having “twice
    given [him] the benefit of the doubt,” the District Court
    recognized the need to “make the restriction even more clear
    so that it calls for no interpretation on [Stone’s] part
    whatsoever.” A.223-24. To avoid generating even “more
    pretrial publicity and more concerning articles for the jury to
    read,” the Court deferred initiating contempt proceedings.
    A.222-23. The Court also declined to revoke Stone’s bond.
    Instead, the Court again modified the conditions of Stone’s
    release to include a blanket ban on using Instagram, Twitter, or
    Facebook. Specifically, the Court declared that during the
    pendency of the case, Stone is prohibited from posting “on
    Instagram, Twitter or Facebook in any way, on any subject,”
    and that this ban “includes, but is not limited to, forwarding,
    liking, re-posting or re-Tweeting anyone else’s posts or
    Tweets.” A.224.
    The next day, on July 17, 2019, the Court entered an order
    restating this modification and clarifying that “all other
    conditions of release, and all other provisions of the Court’s
    orders of February 15 and February 21, 2019, remain in force.”
    A.229-30. The order emphasized in bold the existing
    restrictions on Stone’s discussion of the case through “any
    other form of social media” and “indirect” discussion of the
    case through “surrogates, family members, spokespersons,
    representatives, or volunteers.” 
    Id.
     The order also stated that
    such prohibited statements “include, but are not limited to,
    statements about public filings or orders issued in the case, and
    the re-transmission, quotation, or dissemination of statements
    by others about the investigation or the case.” A.230.
    On August 2, 2019, Stone and four of Stone’s family
    members petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus seeking
    to vacate the District Court’s February 21, July 16, and July 17,
    10
    2019 orders modifying Stone’s conditions of release and
    sought expedited review. The Petitioners argue that the orders
    constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint on their speech.
    Shortly after they filed the petition, an individual named David
    Christenson moved to intervene.
    II.
    “[T]he remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked
    only in extraordinary situations.” Allied Chem. Corp. v.
    Daiflon, Inc., 
    449 U.S. 33
    , 34 (1980). To show entitlement to
    mandamus, a petitioner “must demonstrate (1) a clear and
    indisputable right to relief, (2) that the government agency or
    official is violating a clear duty to act, and (3) that no adequate
    alternative remedy exists.” Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. Burwell, 
    812 F.3d 183
    , 189 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “These three
    threshold requirements are jurisdictional; unless all are met, a
    court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.” 
    Id.
    (citation omitted). Because the Petitioners possess adequate
    alternative remedies, they fail to satisfy the third prong of
    mandamus entitlement, and we must dismiss the petition for
    lack of jurisdiction.
    A.
    For his part, Stone could have appealed under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3145
    (c), which expressly provides for judicial review of a
    detention order. See United States v. Salerno, 
    481 U.S. 739
    ,
    752 (1987) (“The [Bail Reform] Act’s review provisions,
    § 3145(c), provide for immediate appellate review of the
    detention decision.”). Indeed, we recently heard a direct appeal
    by a criminal defendant from a pretrial order regarding his
    conditions of release – in that case, a pretrial detention order.
    11
    See United States v. Manafort, 
    897 F.3d 340
     (D.C. Cir. 2018).1
    And despite Stone’s protestation that “no adequate alternative
    remedy would suffice to expeditiously address the violation”
    he complains of, Pet’rs’ Reply Br. at 10-11, this provision
    expressly requires expeditious review, stating that “[t]he appeal
    shall be determined promptly,” 18 U.S.C § 3145(c).2
    Stone could have challenged the conditional release orders
    by filing a notice of appeal within fourteen days after their
    entry, see FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A), but failed to do so. Stone
    also could have filed a motion to modify his conditional release
    order and filed an appeal within fourteen days if unsuccessful.
    Instead, on August 2, 2019 – sixteen days after the July 17
    order and over six months after the February 21 order – he filed
    the instant petition for writ of mandamus. Thus, even if we
    were to construe his petition as a notice of appeal, we would
    have to dismiss the appeal because the government argued that
    the petition, so construed, would be untimely. See id.; United
    States v. Byfield, 
    522 F.3d 400
    , 402-03 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Stone
    had an adequate avenue of relief – direct appeal – but he failed
    to avail himself of it in a timely fashion, so we lack jurisdiction
    1
    See Appellant’s Opening Br. at 2, Manafort, 
    897 F.3d 340
     (No. 18-
    3037) (asserting 
    18 U.S.C. § 3145
    (c) and 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     as the
    basis for our jurisdiction).
    2
    Though the technical basis for appealability of pretrial release
    orders has confounded scholars and divided courts, see, e.g., 15B
    Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3918.2
    at 440 (2d ed. 1992) (noting that “the incorporation of [28 U.S.C.]
    § 1291 [in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3145
    (c)] is potentially ambiguous”), we need
    not decide this question here. Whether a criminal defendant’s appeal
    of his detention or release order is reviewable as a “final order” under
    28 U.S.C § 1291, see, e.g., United States v. Abuhamra, 
    389 F.3d 309
    ,
    317 (2d Cir. 2004), or as a “collateral order,” see, e.g., United States
    v. Schock, 
    891 F.3d 334
    , 339 (7th Cir. 2018), the end result is the
    same: an appealable order.
    12
    to grant the mandamus petition. See United States v.
    Gundersen, 
    978 F.2d 580
    , 583 (10th Cir. 1992) (conditional
    release order was an appealable order pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 3145
    (c), and “[m]andamus, therefore, is inappropriate”); In
    re Ojeda Rios, 
    863 F.2d 202
    , 205 (2d Cir. 1988) (mandamus
    not available where appeal of pretrial detention order was still
    pending); see also In re Robinson, 713 F. App’x 764, 769 (10th
    Cir. 2017) (court denied mandamus petition as moot where
    appeal of detention order was also filed); In re Williams, 364
    F. App’x 764, 765 (3d Cir. 2010) (pretrial detainee not entitled
    to mandamus relief when he could have appealed denial of his
    motion seeking review of detention order).
    B.
    Stone’s family members, who assert a somewhat different
    injury than Stone, also fail to establish that no adequate
    alternative remedy exists. Unlike Stone himself, Stone’s
    family members are free to use social media and free to speak
    about the case. The order merely enjoins Stone from
    vicariously expressing his speech about the case through
    anyone else. However, because the order expressly mentions
    his family members, they argue that it chills their speech rights
    in two ways. First, they contend that speaking about the case
    could put Stone’s liberty at risk, because it could be “viewed
    as” speaking on his behalf. Petition at 27. Second, they fear
    that speaking about the case will “[a]t the least” subject them
    “to an inquiry by the court” as to whether they were acting as
    Stone’s “surrogates.” 
    Id.
     (citing Dombrowski v. Pfister, 
    380 U.S. 479
    , 487 (1965)).
    To the extent Stone’s family members assert a right to
    make statements about the case completely independent from
    Stone, and not on his behalf, their complaints about the District
    Court’s order appear somewhat exaggerated. Even if the
    13
    District Court’s order did not contain the challenged provision
    prohibiting Stone from “comment[ing] publicly about the case
    indirectly by having statements made publicly on his behalf by
    surrogates, family members, spokespersons, representatives, or
    volunteers,” A.107-08, 114-15, 229-30, Stone’s family
    members would be in the same position they are now – that is,
    they would not be permitted to knowingly aid and abet Stone
    in contemptuously violating the Court’s orders. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 2
    . Moreover, Stone cannot be automatically punished
    anytime one of his family members speaks about his criminal
    proceedings. Rather, the government would have the burden
    to establish such surrogacy by clear and convincing evidence.
    See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3148
    (b)(1)(B). Nevertheless, Stone’s family
    members also possess an adequate appellate remedy to
    challenge the alleged First Amendment violations, depriving us
    of mandamus jurisdiction.
    Though they lack the same appellate rights Stone has
    under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3145
    (c), our Circuit has long allowed
    nonparties subject to a restrictive order to appeal that order
    under the collateral order doctrine. Often, where a gag order
    restricts speech about a case, the nonparties challenging the
    order are members of the press. For example, in In re
    Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, we considered
    nonparty reporters’ appeal of a protective order over discovery
    materials under the collateral order doctrine, because the
    reporters’ claims were “separable from, and collateral to, the
    rights of the parties to the underlying proceeding.” 
    773 F.2d 1325
    , 1330 (D.C. Cir. 1985). We explained that the order was
    a final, reviewable order as to the reporters because they
    asserted that it irreparably damaged their “right to [receive] the
    unprivileged information during trial, when it had greater news
    value,” and because “appellate consideration of the reporters’
    claims would not disrupt the trial[.]” Id.; see also Cable News
    Network, Inc. v. United States, 
    824 F.2d 1046
     (D.C. Cir. 1987)
    14
    (per curiam) (considering an appeal brought by nonparty news
    organization and reversing a district court’s decision to close
    the courtroom during the voir dire portion of a criminal
    proceeding); United States v. Brown, 
    218 F.3d 415
    , 422 (5th
    Cir. 2000) (“[T]his Court and other Courts of Appeals have
    repeatedly held, in both civil and criminal trials, that gag orders
    imposed on members of the press are appealable under the
    collateral order doctrine.” (collecting cases)).
    For purposes of collateral-order appellate jurisdiction, we
    see no distinction between an appeal brought by nonparty
    relatives of a party who wish to speak publicly about a case and
    nonparty reporters who wish to receive information about a
    case. In both instances, the alleged injury is to First
    Amendment rights during the pendency of a case. And an
    aggrieved nonparty with Article III standing can appeal an
    order that affects her interests. See In re Sealed Case (Med.
    Records), 
    381 F.3d 1205
    , 1211 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“The
    Supreme Court has never restricted the right to appeal to named
    parties to a litigation, and if the decree affects a third party’s
    interests, he is often allowed to appeal.” (citation and internal
    quotation marks omitted)).
    In short, we hold that mandamus is not available for
    Stone’s family members, because they may move the District
    Court to reconsider or modify the conditions of release and, if
    unsuccessful, appeal the denial of that motion.3 As we
    3
    Because they filed their petition more than fourteen days after the
    entry of the July 17, 2019 order, we cannot construe Stone’s family
    members’ motion as a notice of appeal. See FED. R. APP. P.
    4(b)(1)(A). We therefore do not decide whether they could have
    directly appealed the conditional release orders without first
    presenting their objections to the District Court. Suffice it to say that
    they have an adequate alternative remedy: a motion for
    reconsideration and, if necessary, an appeal of the denial of that
    15
    explained in United States v. Hubbard, “[t]he means by which
    third parties have sought to assert their interests
    in criminal cases have been manifold,” but generally “[i]t is the
    trial court and not this court that should engage in the initial
    consideration of the interests at stake[.]” 
    650 F.2d 293
    , 309-10
    (D.C. Cir. 1980) (“Even assuming mandamus relief is available
    to non-parties in a criminal proceeding, we think the inevitable
    delay in seeking a writ and the narrow circumstances under
    which it will be granted render it inadequate to redress the type
    of injury here alleged and mandate the identification of some
    other means by which a non-party’s interest may timely be
    presented to the district court whose actions are alleged to
    affect that interest.”); see also United States v. Barry, No. 90-
    3149, 
    1990 WL 104925
    , at *1 (D.C. Cir. July 5, 1990)
    (remanding an appeal by nonparties of an order banning them
    from attending a criminal trial and holding that they did not
    motion. See In re GTE Serv. Corp., 
    762 F.2d 1024
    , 1026 (D.C. Cir.
    1985) (denying writ of mandamus “because the petitioners had a
    clearly adequate remedy in that they could have petitioned for review
    of the [agency’s] order . . . and could then have moved for a stay of
    that order”); Cole v. U.S. Dist. Court For Dist. of Idaho, 
    366 F.3d 813
    , 815 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[B]ecause mandamus is an extraordinary
    remedy and petitioners did not take advantage of an available remedy
    by seeking review of the magistrate judge’s decision before the
    district court, we deny the petition.”); In re Ramirez, 605 F. App’x
    361, 363 (5th Cir. 2015) (explaining that the circuit court had
    previously denied a mandamus petitioner’s petition “because a
    motion for reconsideration was still pending with the district court,
    meaning that an alternative means for relief was still available”); In
    re Ingris, 601 F. App’x 71, 75 (3d Cir. 2015) (denying mandamus
    petition seeking to correct an alleged docketing error because
    “recourse [could] be had either by writing a letter to the Clerk of the
    District Court seeking reconsideration of the decision, or by
    appealing the decision of the Clerk to a United States District Judge
    . . . in accordance with whatever local rules or internal operating
    procedures might apply”).
    16
    need to “seek to intervene in the criminal proceeding in order
    to note an appeal,” and that “the most appropriate course” was
    “to require [them] to present their First and Fifth Amendment
    claims to the district court in the first instance”); Republic of
    Venezuela v. Philip Morris Inc., 
    287 F.3d 192
    , 198 (D.C. Cir.
    2002) (“We are particularly disinclined to issue the writ before
    the district court has acted[.]”). Though the availability of a
    motion to reconsider will not preclude mandamus jurisdiction
    where a petitioner shows that such a motion would be futile,
    see In re BigCommerce, Inc., 
    890 F.3d 978
    , 982 (Fed. Cir.
    2018), Stone’s family members give us no reason to believe
    that the District Court would not fairly consider their
    objections. Because Stone’s family members fail to meet their
    burden to establish the lack of any adequate alternative remedy,
    we lack jurisdiction over their mandamus petition. See Am.
    Hosp. Ass’n, 812 F.3d at 189.
    III.
    Consistent with the foregoing, we dismiss the mandamus
    petition and deny the motion to intervene as moot.
    So ordered.