United States v. Kieffer ( 2022 )

Case: 21-30614 Document: 00516354814 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 13, 2022
No. 21-30614
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jerome Kieffer,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:17-CR-114-2
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jerome Kieffer, federal prisoner # 37176-034, was convicted by a jury
of conspiracy to commit bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; armed
bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d); brandishing a
firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-30614 Document: 00516354814 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2022
No. 21-30614
§ 924(c)(1)(A); attempted armed bank robbery resulting in death, in violation
of § 2113(a), (d), and (e); and causing death through the use of a firearm, in
violation of § 924(j)(1). He was sentenced to life imprisonment, and his
convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal. United States v. Kieffer,
991 F.3d 630 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 297 (2021).
Proceeding pro se, Kieffer now appeals the district court’s denial of
his pro se motion for a writ of mandamus, in which he asked that the district
court order the United States Attorney’s Office to provide a copy of a Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) certificate. Kieffer asserted that the
certificate was needed in support of his then-pending petition for a writ of
certiorari to the Supreme Court.
A district court has jurisdiction over “any action in the nature of
mandamus” seeking to compel a United States officer “to perform a duty
owed to [a] plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The authority to issue a writ of
mandamus derives from the All Writs Act (AWA), 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which
grants federal courts the power to issue all writs in aid of their jurisdiction.
See In re Gee, 941 F.3d 153, 157 (5th Cir. 2019). Under the AWA, three
requirements must be met before a writ of mandamus will issue. See United
States v. Williams, 400 F.3d 277, 280–81 (5th Cir. 2005). Relevant here, the
district court concluded that Kieffer failed to show “that his right to issuance
of the writ is clear and indisputable.” Id. at 281.
Kieffer fails to challenge that determination or to identify any error
with the district court’s decision to deny his motion for a writ of mandamus
to compel the production of the FDIC certificate. Additionally, although
Kieffer asserts that he is actually innocent and that conspiracy to commit
Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence, those arguments do not go to
whether the district court erred by denying his motion for a writ of
mandamus.
2
Case: 21-30614 Document: 00516354814 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2022
No. 21-30614
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Should
Kieffer seek to raise claims “for errors that occurred at or prior to
sentencing,” a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the primary means of doing
so. Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425–26 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
3