In re: Akeem Gumbs

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: MCKEE, VANASKIE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. ALD-193

Case: 18-1596

Document: 003112952077

Page: 1

ALD-193

Date Filed: 06/08/2018

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-1596
___________
IN RE: AKEEM R. GUMBS,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
District Court of the Virgin Islands
(Related to D.V.I. Crim. No. 3-11-mj-00031-001)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
May 3, 2018
Before: MCKEE, VANASKIE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 8, 2018)
_________
OPINION*
_________

PER CURIAM
Akeem R. Gumbs has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting the relief
addressed below. We will deny the petition.
Gumbs was convicted in the District Court of the Virgin Islands of 31 counts
relating to his production and possession of child pornography and the rape of his eightyear-old niece, which he filmed. The District Court sentenced him to 300 months of

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

Case: 18-1596

Document: 003112952077

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/08/2018

imprisonment, and we affirmed. See United States v. Gumbs, 562 F. App’x 110 (3d Cir.
2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 205 (2014). In doing so, we rejected Gumbs’s challenge to
a search warrant used to seize evidence presented at trial. See id. at 113-14. Gumbs has
challenged his convictions in numerous other proceedings, including one under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and several previous mandamus proceedings in this
Court. We rejected those challenges as well. See, e.g., In re Gumbs, 697 F. App’x 137,
138 (3d Cir. 2017) (summarizing Gumbs’s challenges).
Presently before us is Gumbs’s seventh mandamus petition. By way of
background, Gumbs was referred to a Magistrate Judge for his initial appearance and a
detention hearing in a proceeding docketed at D.V.I. Crim. No. 3-11-mj-00031-001.
Gumbs was later indicted and convicted in the criminal proceeding docketed at D.V.I.
Crim. No. 3-11-cr-00021-001. Gumbs argues that the first of these proceedings remains
open, and he seeks an order directing the District Court to determine whether it will hold
a trial on the charges in that proceeding or whether those charges should be dismissed.
He further argues that dismissal of those charges will invalidate the seizure of evidence
against him and thus will require dismissal of his criminal proceeding as well.
Gumbs’s request is frivolous. The docket for the Magistrate Judge proceeding
does not reflect the pendency of any charges against Gumbs. Nor has Gumbs shown any
basis to continue to challenge his convictions following our affirmance of those
convictions and the denial of his § 2255 motion. For these reasons, we will deny

constitute binding precedent.

2

Case: 18-1596

Document: 003112952077

Page: 3

Date Filed: 06/08/2018

Gumbs’s petition. Gumbs is warned that further frivolous filings could result in
sanctions, such as the imposition of a monetary penalty and an order prohibiting him
from filing further petitions with this Court until the penalty is paid.

3