In Re: Gennaro Rauso v.
697 F. App'x 126
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Rauso pleaded guilty in 2010 to multiple federal offenses (equity skimming, mail fraud, access device fraud, bank fraud) and was sentenced to 160 months.
- His plea agreement contained an appellate/collateral-attack waiver; the Third Circuit previously enforced that waiver on direct appeal in United States v. Rauso, affirming conviction and sentence.
- Rauso filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and an amended § 2255 motion in district court challenging his sentence; the Government moved to dismiss based on the plea waiver.
- On July 30, 2014 the District Court granted the Government’s motion and dismissed the amended § 2255 motion as barred by the plea waiver; Rauso’s Rule 59(e) and supplement requests were denied on November 19, 2014.
- The Third Circuit denied a certificate of appealability, concluding reasonable jurists would not debate that the plea waiver barred Rauso’s claims and that the district court did not err in its procedural rulings.
- Rauso then sought a writ of mandamus asking this Court to compel the District Court to consider his objections and response to the Government’s motion to dismiss, claiming the dismissal occurred before he could file them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should compel the district court to consider Rauso's late objections/response | Rauso: district court dismissed the amended § 2255 motion before time to file his objections/response; court should be compelled to consider them | Govt/District Court: dismissal was proper because claims are barred by plea-waiver and Rauso had appellate remedies | Denied — mandamus inappropriate; Rauso had adequate remedy by appeal and has not shown a clear, indisputable right to relief |
| Whether Rauso may relitigate § 2255 claims despite plea-waiver | Rauso: seeks to litigate objections to the dismissal | District Court/Govt: plea agreement waiver bars collateral attack; prior appellate ruling enforces waiver | Court treated this as part of the mandamus analysis and refused to permit relitigation through mandamus |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2000) (sets high standard for mandamus: drastic, rarely issued; petitioner must show no other adequate means and a clear, indisputable right)
- United States v. Rauso, [citation="548 F. App'x 36"] (3d Cir. 2013) (prior panel enforced Rauso's plea-waiver and affirmed conviction and sentence)