in Re: Ahmad Williams v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 3d Cir. 1996 . Extraordinary relief is not warranted here.…

ELD-003 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-1323
___________
IN RE: AHMAD WILLIAMS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Cr. No. 2-23-cr-00284-001)
____________________________________
Submitted on the Government’s Motion for Summary Denial and
Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 27, 2024
Before: SHWARTZ, BIBAS, and CHUNpG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed March 28, 2024)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Ahmad Williams, a criminal defendant awaiting trial, petitions this Court for a
writ of mandamus. Williams was indicted and charged with being a felon in possession
of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He filed a counseled motion to dismiss
the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to
* 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
him.1 The District Court denied the motion. In his pro se mandamus petition, Williams
seeks an order vacating the District Court’s order, and either directing the District Court
to dismiss the indictment or providing it “guidance” as to how to reconsider the motion to
dismiss the indictment. The Government seeks summary denial of the petition so that
Williams’ trial may proceed forthwith. For the following reasons, we will grant the
Government’s motion and deny the mandamus petition.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary
circumstances. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.
2005). Within the discretion of the issuing court, mandamus traditionally may be used
“to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to
compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Id. (citations omitted). A
petitioner seeking the writ “must have no other adequate means to obtain the desired
relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear and indisputable.” Madden v.
Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).
Extraordinary relief is not warranted here. Although Williams maintains that the
District Court usurped its power in denying the motion to dismiss, he essentially argues
that the District Court got the Bruen/Range analysis wrong. However, the appropriate
time to make this argument is on appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence.
1 In support of his motion to dismiss the indictment, Williams relied on the Supreme
Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct.
2111 (2022), and our recent en banc decision in Range v. Att’y Gen., 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir.
2023), applying Bruen.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for the regular appeals process. See In re
Nwanze, 242 F.3d 521, 524 (3d Cir. 2001).
Based on the foregoing, we perceive no basis for granting mandamus relief, and,
therefore, we grant the Government’s motion for summary denial, and will deny the
petition for a writ of mandamus.

-- 3 of 3 --