eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 2005-09

In Re: Bullock ( 2005 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-21-2005
In Re: Bullock
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3139
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Bullock " (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 510.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/510
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
APS-341                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-3139
________________
IN RE: MONROE BULLOCK,
Petitioner.
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 98-cv-05023)
District Judge: Honorable James McGirr Kelly
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
August 18, 2005
Present: SLOVITER, FUENTES AND NYGAARD, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed September 21, 2005 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Monroe Bullock petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing
the District Court to impose a reduced sentence on his conviction for conspiracy to
distribute cocaine base. Bullock’s petition appears to be an attempt to file a successive
motion under
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    . Thus, we will deny the petition.
I.
Bullock has previously pursued direct and collateral review in this Court. We
affirmed his judgment of conviction and sentence in 1997. See United States v. Bullock,
C.A. No. 96-1639 (3d Cir. Sept. 18, 1997). He then filed his first motion under
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     in 1998, which the District Court denied. We denied a certificate of appealability.
United States v. Bullock, C.A. No. 99-1175, Order (3d Cir. Oct. 27, 1994). In 2001,
Bullock filed his first application for permission to file a second or successive § 2255
motion, which we also denied. In re Bullock, C.A. No. 01-2655, Order (3d Cir. Aug. 29,
2001).
II.
On June 22, 2005, Bullock filed the instant mandamus request raising two
arguments: (1) the District Court found facts not supported by the record; and (2) the
District Court erred in enhancing his sentencing score based on a finding that Bullock
used a firearm in connection with a drug offense.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which should be invoked rarely.1
See Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal.,
    426 U.S. 394
    , 402 (1976).
Bullock must show that he has an indisputable right to the writ and that there exists no
other adequate remedy. See Haines v. Liggett Group Inc.,
    975 F.2d 81
    , 89 (3d Cir. 1992).
A § 2255 motion is the presumptive means for a federal prisoner to challenge the
fact or duration of a conviction or sentence, unless such a motion would be “inadequate
or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Okereke v. United States,
    307 F.3d 1
    We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1651
     and Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 21(a).
2
117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002);
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     ¶ 5. A § 2255 motion is inadequate or
ineffective only when “some limitation of scope or procedure” prevents a movant from
receiving an adjudication of his claim. Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner,
    290 F.3d 536
    , 538 (3d Cir. 2002). Section 2255 is not “inadequate or ineffective” merely because
the sentencing court previously denied relief or because the gatekeeping provisions of §
2255 make it difficult to pursue a successive motion. Id. at 539; see also In re Dorsainvil,
    119 F.3d 245
    , 251 (3d Cir. 1997).
Upon thoroughly reviewing Bullock’s request, we find that he directly challenges
the fact of his conviction and the duration of his sentence. He thus fails to show that
there exists no other adequate remedy. We recognize that Bullock would not now be
entitled to file a second or successive § 2255 motion raising the instant claims. See
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     ¶ 7. However, as explained in Cradle, just because Bullock cannot meet
the stringent standards of the revised § 2255 does not mean that he may now pursue his
claims through a request for a writ of mandamus.
Accordingly, his petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied.
3