
    IN RE: Jeffrey SCHMUTZLER, Petitioner
    No. 17-1658
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. April 13, 2017
    (Opinion filed: May 1, 2017)
    Jeffrey Schmutzler, Pro Se
    Daryl F, Bloom, Esq., James T. Clancy, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Plaintiff-Respondent
    Before: MCKEE, JORDAN, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
   OPINION

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Jeffrey Schmutzler has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have this Court quash an indictment, which he claims was improperly obtained, and vacate his conviction and sentence. We will deny the petition.

In August 2014, Schmutzler pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 108 months, to be followed by 10 years of supervised release. This Court affirmed. United States v. Schmutzler, 602 Fed.Appx. 871 (3d Cir. 2015); Schmutzler subsequently filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming, inter alia, that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to file a pretrial motion challenging federal jurisdiction. The District Court denied the § 2255 motion and this Court declined to issue a certificate of appealability. See C.A. No. 15-2462 (order entered Dec. 21, 2015). Thereafter, Schmutzler filed a § 2241 petition in the District of Massachusetts, where he was incarcerated, raising claims similar to those that were raised in his § 2255 petition. The District Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Schmutzler v. Grondolsky, D. Mass. No. 1-16-cv-10077 (order entered September 16, 2016). Schmutzler subsequently filed two applications for leave to file a second § 2255 motion, presenting the same jurisdictional challenges as were previously raised. We denied both applications,

Schmutzler now petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus. Schmutzler seeks an order from this Court directing the District Court to quash his indictment and vacate his sentence. Schmutzler argues that Pennsylvania had either exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction over his crimes, which therefore deprived federal authorities of jurisdiction to prosecute and convict him.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary-remedy. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 726 (1976); In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2006). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must establish that “(1) no other adequate means exist to attain the relief he desires, (2) [his] right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190, 130 S.Ct. 705, 175 L.Ed.2d 657 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks, alteration omitted). Mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996). That is, a court will not issue a writ of mandamus where the petitioner “could readily have secured review of the ruling complained of and all objectives now sought, by direct appeal.” Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 506, 99 S.Ct. 2445, 61 L.Ed.2d 30 (1979). Schmutzler raises claims that could have been presented in prior appeals; thus, he is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Further, a § 2255 motion filed in the sentencing court is the presumptive means for a federal prisoner to challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence. See Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002). As noted, Schmutzler previously filed a § 2255 motion, which the District Court denied. If Schmutzler wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction or sentence by filing a second or successive § 2255 motion, he must once again comply with the gatekeeping requirements prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244 and § 2255(h). He may not use a mandamus petition to evade these requirements. See Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir. 2009); United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188, 189-90 (3d Cir. 2000) (per curiam). Accordingly, we will deny Schmutzler’s mandamus petition. Schmutzler’s motion for the appointment of counsel and his motion requesting bail are denied. 
      
       This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P, 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
     
      
      . Schmutzler has also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel and a motion request-tag bail.
     