In Re: Darnell Ro

Filing 920100528

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT __________________ No. 10-1587 __________________ In Re: DARNELL E. ROSS, Petitioner.

__________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. __________________ Submitted: May 28, 2010 Decided: __________________ May 28, 2010

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. __________________ Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. __________________ Darnell E. Ross, Petitioner Pro Se. __________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a pro se petition for writ of mandamus purportedly pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The Crime Victim's Rights Act affords to victims of crime the rights to receive notice of court proceedings, to be heard at court proceedings, to confer with government counsel, to

receive restitution, to be free from unreasonable delay, and to be treated with fairness. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). The Act

provides that these rights shall be asserted in the district court and that "[i]f the district court denies the relief

sought, the movant may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(3). If such a petition is

filed, "[t]he court of appeals shall take up and decide such application forthwith within 72 hours after the petition has been filed." Id. Furthermore, "[i]f the court of appeals

denies the relief sought, the reasons for the denial shall be clearly stated on the record in a written opinion." Petitioner Ross moves for relief from his Id. state court

sentence for abduction with intent to defile on the ground that his sentence was greater than that prescribed by the state

legislature for this crime.

2

The statutory provision for expedited mandamus review of a district court's denial of rights asserted under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3771(a) has no application to the claims asserted by Ross. Ross's claims are attacks on the legality of his confinement, which may be raised on direct appeal in state court, in state post-conviction proceedings, or potentially in federal district court in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He has not been

denied any rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) which could form the basis for a mandamus petition to this Court. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to proceed in

forma pauperis as moot, and dismisses this mandamus petition. PETITION DISMISSED

3