Third Circuit disposition — 241756np-pdf

ALD-141 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-1756
___________
IN RE: KEVINO GRAHAM,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to 2-14-cr-00623-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
June 20, 2024
Before: HARDIMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 3, 2024)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Kevino Graham has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that we
compel the District Court to change the jury instructions concerning offenses under 18
U.S.C. § 1591. For the following reasons, we will deny the petition.
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
In 2016, a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania found Graham guilty of sex trafficking by force and attempting to commit
that offense. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1594. The District Court sentenced him to 100
years in prison. He has since unsuccessfully sought relief on direct appeal and in post-
conviction proceedings.
Graham has now filed a mandamus petition, asking that we compel the District
Court to stop moving the commerce language from the beginning of § 1591(a)(1).” (Doc.
1-1, at 1 (emphasis in original).) This claim appears to be related to Graham’s assertion,
which he previously has made without success, that the jury instructions constructively
amended the indictment by listing the interstate commerce requirement last among the
three elements of § 1591.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy that is available in extraordinary
circumstances only. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.
2005). To obtain the writ, a petitioner must show that “(1) no other adequate means
[exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear
and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth
v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (alteration in original) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Graham has not made that showing. The argument that he now raises
essentially attacks his criminal conviction and could have been raised on direct appeal.
But “a writ of mandamus may not issue if a petitioner can obtain relief by appeal.”
Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we will deny Graham’s mandamus petition.

-- 3 of 3 --