in Re: Donte Parrish v. Parrish, 287 F. App’x 990, 992 3d Cir. 2008 . Parrish’s first motion under 28 U.S.C.…

CLD-041 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 22-3038
___________
IN RE: DONTE PARRISH,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M.D. Pa. Crim. No. 1:05-cr-00417-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 1, 2022
Before: GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 6, 2023)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Donte Parrish pleaded guilty to being in possession of a firearm related to drug
trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Classified as a “career offender,” Parrish
was subject to an advisory Guidelines sentencing range of 262 to 327 months of
imprisonment. The District Court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 180 months,
* 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 4 --

2
to run concurrent with a state sentence Parrish was serving. The District Court also
imposed a term of three years of supervised release.
This Court affirmed Parrish’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See United
States v. Parrish, 287 F. App’x 990, 992 (3d Cir. 2008). Parrish’s first motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence was denied.
Years later, we granted Parrish’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 for authorization
to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Counsel for Parrish then filed with the
District Court a “Joint Motion for a Reduction of Sentence.” In that motion, counsel
articulated the following agreement with the Government:
¶ 24. “In an effort to resolve all pending matters in this case, the parties
have agreed that under these unique circumstances, Mr. Parrish should
receive a reduction in his sentence to 167 months.”
¶ 25. “The parties agree that upon the imposition of a sentence of 167
months, the pro se petition for writ of audita querela, and the counseled
motion . . . under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, should be dismissed as moot and case
number 1:16-C[V]-01363 should be closed.”
DC ECF No. 105 at 5 (docket citations omitted).
The District Court granted the joint motion and reduced Parrish’s “previously
imposed sentence of imprisonment of 180 months . . . to 167 months.” DC ECF No. 106.
The District Court did so by order entered on January 29, 2020. An amended judgment
was entered that same day.1
1 It appears that Parrish was released from federal prison on or about March 24, 2020, and
transferred to State custody at that time pursuant to a detainer from the Pennsylvania

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Now, almost three years later, Parrish has filed a pro se petition for a writ of
mandamus. With that petition, Parrish: evinces a misunderstanding of the Court’s order
granting his § 2244 motion (and no other relief); demands that the Government respond
to the already-dismissed second-or-successive § 2255 motion; and challenges the District
Court’s amended judgment formalizing the negotiated sentence.2
Mandamus is a “drastic remedy” reserved for “extraordinary circumstances,” In re
Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005)—circumstances that are
not presented in this case. Indeed, Parrish fails to make any of the required showings:
“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)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Okereke v. United States, 307
F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002) (“Motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are the presumptive
means by which federal prisoners can challenge their convictions or sentences that are
allegedly in violation of the Constitution.”); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of
Board of Probation and Parole. Although Parrish indicates, as recently as mid-November
2022, that he is incarcerated at the York County Prison, he also asserts that he is on
supervised release, see Doc. 1-2 at 3, 5, pursuant to the District Court’s amended
judgment, see DC ECF No. 107. We need not resolve that apparent incongruity here.
2 Parrish has also filed a “Motion to Proceed on the Original Record.” Inasmuch as
Parrish is simply requesting that his mandamus petition be considered in light of the
record in the District Court with respect to his federal criminal case, the motion is
granted.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1422 (3d Cir. 1991) (recognizing the well-settled rule that
mandamus is not a substitute for the normal appellate process). Accordingly, the
mandamus petition will be denied.

-- 4 of 4 --