In re: Michael Janeski

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: JORDAN, SHWARTZ and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 2. DLD-245

Case: 18-2164

Document: 003112975147

Page: 1

DLD-245

Date Filed: 07/06/2018

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 18-2164
____________
IN RE: MICHAEL ROBERT JANESKI,
Petitioner
__________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. Crim. No. 1-17-cr-00016-001)
__________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. Pro. 21
June 21, 2018
Before: JORDAN, SHWARTZ and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 6, 2018)
____________
OPINION *
____________

PER CURIAM
In 2017, Michael Janeski pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of children in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2251, and was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment. No direct appeal
was taken. He now petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to reinstate his appellate
rights.
*

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

Case: 18-2164

Document: 003112975147

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/06/2018

Our jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which grants us the power to “issue
all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our . . . jurisdiction] and agreeable to the
usages and principles of law.” The remedy is “a drastic one, to be invoked only in
extraordinary situations.” United States v. Santtini, 963 F.2d 585, 593 (3d Cir. 1992). To
justify the use of this extraordinary remedy, Janeski must show both a clear and
indisputable right to the writ and that he has no other adequate means to obtain the relief
desired. See Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992).
Janeski maintains that he was denied his right to a direct criminal appeal because
his counsel was ineffective in failing to file a notice of appeal from his judgment of
conviction. A motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the appropriate
means for a federal prisoner to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See United
States v. DeRewal, 10 F.3d 100, 103-04 (3d Cir. 1993). Janeski’s criminal judgment was
entered on July 28, 2017. He has not yet filed a § 2255 motion, and the one-year statute
of limitations for doing so has not yet expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Because Janeski
has an adequate alternative means of relief, we will deny the mandamus petition.

2