DLD-245 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

, 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. Our jurisdiction derives from

, 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,

(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.,

, 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

is the appropriate

means for a federal prisoner to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See United

States v. DeRewal,

(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

(f). Because Janeski

has an adequate alternative means of relief, we will deny the mandamus petition.

2