Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. John C. Patterson, 11th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of John Patterson's motion to compel specific performance of a 2003 plea agreement or withdraw his guilty plea. Patterson had filed the motion under the Mandamus Act, claiming the government breached the plea agreement. The district court denied relief under the Mandamus Act because Patterson had adequate alternative remedies to pursue his claim, such as a direct appeal or a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which he did not pursue. The Eleventh Circuit agreed Patterson was not entitled to mandamus relief given the availability of other remedies.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-02-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-13267

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of John Patterson's motion to compel specific performance of a 2003 plea agreement or withdraw his guilty plea. Patterson had filed the motion under the Mandamus Act, claiming the government breached the plea agreement. The district court denied relief under the Mandamus Act because Patterson had adequate alternative remedies to pursue his claim, such as a direct appeal or a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which he did not pursue. The Eleventh Circuit agreed Patterson was not entitled to mandamus relief given the availability of other remedies.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    13 views2 pages

    United States v. John C. Patterson, 11th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of John Patterson's motion to compel specific performance of a 2003 plea agreement or withdraw his guilty plea. Patterson had filed the motion under the Mandamus Act, claiming the government breached the plea agreement. The district court denied relief under the Mandamus Act because Patterson had adequate alternative remedies to pursue his claim, such as a direct appeal or a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which he did not pursue. The Eleventh Circuit agreed Patterson was not entitled to mandamus relief given the availability of other remedies.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    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
    courts 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 courts 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-pleaagreement claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101,
    110405 (11th Cir. 2004). Or he could have raised it in a 28 U.S.C. 2255
    motion. 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.

    The district court alternatively construed Pattersons 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 courts dismissal under
    1361.
    2

    You might also like