US v. Juan Hyman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999708879-2] in 15-2437; denying Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) [999700846-2] in 15-2437 Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00312-H-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999756254]. Mailed to: Juan Hyman. [15-4584, 15-2437]

Appeal: 15-4584

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/17/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4584

In re: JUAN SANCHEZ HYMAN, a/k/a John Boy,
Petitioner.

No. 15-2437

In re: JUAN SANCHEZ HYMAN, a/k/a John Boy,
Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus
(Nos. 5:13-cr-00312-H-1; 5:13-cr-00312-H-1)

Submitted:

January 19, 2016

Decided:

February 17, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juan Sanchez Hyman, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4584

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/17/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In

these

consolidated

proceedings,

Juan

Sanchez

Hyman

petitions for writs of mandamus seeking an order directing the
district court to rule on his motion for a speedy trial.

We

conclude that Hyman is not entitled to the requested relief.
“Mandamus

is

a

drastic

extraordinary situations.”

remedy

to

be

invoked

only

in

United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d

509, 516 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Supreme Court has specified two conditions “that must be
satisfied as a predicate to mandamus jurisdiction”: (1) “‘the
party seeking issuance of the writ must have no other adequate
means to attain the relief he desires,’” id. at 517 (quoting
Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976)), and (2) “‘his
right

to

issuance

of

the

writ

[must

be]

clear

and

indisputable,’” id. (quoting Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland,
346 U.S. 379, 384 (1953)).
We have reviewed the record and find that Hyman has not
made

the

requisite

showing.

His

speedy

trial

claims,

under

either the Sixth Amendment or the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3161-3174 (2012), do not demonstrate a clear and indisputable
right

to

relief.

Accordingly,

although

we

grant

leave

to

proceed in forma pauperis in No. 15-2437, we deny the petitions
for writs of mandamus.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2

Appeal: 15-4584

Doc: 13

materials

before

Filed: 02/17/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

PETITIONS DENIED

3