United States v. John C. Patterson

Case: 14-13267 Date Filed: 02/20/2015 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13267
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:03-cr-00065-PGB-GJK-9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN C. PATTERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 20, 2015)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
John C. Patterson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his “Motion to Compel for Specific Performance of Plea
Agreement or Withdraw[a]l of Guilty Plea,” which he filed under the Mandamus
Case: 14-13267 Date Filed: 02/20/2015 Page: 2 of 2
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Patterson claimed that the government breached a plea
agreement he signed in 2003. The district court denied relief, concluding that
Patterson was not entitled to mandamus because he had an adequate alternative
remedy to pursue his claim. 1 We affirm.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a writ of
mandamus. See In re Stewart, 641 F.3d 1271, 1275 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
Mandamus is appropriate only if, among other things, no other adequate remedy is
available. Cash v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1252, 1258 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).
Patterson had several remedies. He could have raised his breach-of-plea-
agreement claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101,
1104–05 (11th Cir. 2004). Or he could have raised it in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255motion. See United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008) (per
curiam). He did neither. For that reason, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying mandamus.
AFFIRMED.
1
The district court alternatively construed Patterson’s filing as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and
dismissed it as successive. Patterson has neither obtained a certificate of appealability on this
issue nor argued that it was error. We thus consider only the district court’s dismissal under
§ 1361.
2