
    IN RE: Michael WEST, Petitioner
    No. 17-3002
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. November 30, 2017
    (Opinion filed: March 2, 2018)
    Michael West, Pro Se
    David V. Bober, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Trenton, NJ, Mark E. Coyne, Esq., Caroline A. Sadlowski, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, for Defendants-Respondents
    Before: MCKEE, VANASKIE, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
   OPINION

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Michael West is currently serving a sentence for distribution and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (a)(5)(B). In November 2016, West filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey challenging the Bureau of Prison’s calculation of his sentence. West later moved to amend his petition to add a claim that his convictions should be vacated because the district court that presided over the criminal matter lacked jurisdiction to convict him. While his motion to amend was pending, the Government submitted an answer to West’s § 2241 petition.

' West then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the Government had failed to address his contention that the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to convict him. Shortly thereafter, the District Court denied West’s motion to amend his petition to include this claim, explaining that he may not challenge his conviction and sentence via § 2241. West’s habe-as petition remains pending in the District Court.

We will deny the petition. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that we grant only when the petitioner has a “clear and indisputable” right to relief and “no other adequate means” to obtain it. In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d Cir. 2006); see also In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003). West has not demonstrated that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain the requested relief, as he may object to any errors in his case on appeal from a final judgment.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus will be denied. 
      
       This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P, 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent,
     
      
      . We have jurisdiction over this mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
     
      
      . We express no opinion on the merit of any claims raised in such appeal.
     