Christian Womack v., No. 16-3399 (3d Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

ALD-392 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 16-3399 ___________ IN RE: CHRISTIAN DIOR WOMACK, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2:13-cr-00206-001) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. August 25, 2016 Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 29, 2016) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM Christian Dior Womack, a.k.a. Gucci Prada, pleaded guilty to charges of sex trafficking of a minor and sex trafficking by force. We affirmed his judgment of sentence. United States v. Womack, C.A. No. 14-4787, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6334, at *1 (3d Cir. Pa. Apr. 7, 2016). Presenting a variation of an argument that we have rejected * This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. before, he again asks us to issue a writ of mandamus to vacate his judgment of conviction and sentence. Womack claims that his appointed counsel improperly sought and accepted private funds as a retainer from Womack and that the District Court improperly ratified counsel’s action when it terminated counsel’s appointment and allowed Womack to privately retain counsel. We will deny the petition. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). A petitioner must ordinarily have no other means to obtain the desired relief, and he must show a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ. In re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764, 772 (3d Cir. 1992). As we have explained to Womack previously, he cannot challenge the criminal judgment against him through a petition for a writ of mandamus because mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004); Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.