In re: Shapat Nabaya


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--dismissing Motion for writ of mandamus (FRAP 21) filed by Petitioner Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya [1000148166-2] Originating case number: 3:17-cr-00003-MHL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000148589]. Mailed to: Shapat Nabaya. [17-2018]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-2018 Doc: 4 Filed: 09/01/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 17-2018 ___________________ In re: SHAPAT AHDAWAN NABAYA, a/k/a Norman Abbott, Petitioner. ___________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. ___________________ Submitted: September 1, 2017 Decided: September 1, 2017 ___________________ Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. ____________________ Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ____________________ Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya, Petitioner Pro Se. ___________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-2018 Doc: 4 Filed: 09/01/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: This case comes before the court on a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Shapat Nabaya under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 ("CVRA"). The CVRA affords to victims of crime the rights to reasonable protection from the accused, to notice of court proceedings, to participation in court proceedings, to confer with government counsel, to receive restitution, to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and to be treated with fairness. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). These rights must be asserted in the district court and, if the district court denies relief, the movant may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(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. If the court of appeals denies the relief sought, "the reasons for the denial shall be clearly stated on the record in a written opinion." Id. Petitioner maintains that he is entitled to relief under the CVRA as a result of ongoing criminal proceedings in the Eastern District of Virginia. He complains that the government attorneys have not taken proper oaths of office, that failure to file taxes is not a crime, that his pretrial detention violates due process and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and that the district court has failed to take action to protect his rights. Petitioner is not a crime victim under the CVRA. He was indicted on January 1, 2017 by a grand jury. A superseding indictment in the Eastern District of Virginia was filed on April 4, 2017, charging Nabaya with (1) retaliating against a federal officer by 2 Appeal: 17-2018 Doc: 4 Filed: 09/01/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 false claim and (2) false statement in bankruptcy. In proceedings held on August 18, 2017 in the district court, Nabaya was found competent to stand trial and trial was set for October 18-20, 2017. Nabaya’s pending motions were denied. In proceedings held on August 25, 2017, the magistrate judge revoked Nabaya’s conditions of release for cause. Nabaya’s motion to reconsider the revocation is pending in the district court. The CVRA defines a “crime victim” as a “person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(2)(A). Nabaya clearly does not come within the statutory definition. The CVRA also provides that “[a] person accused of the crime may not obtain any form of relief under this chapter.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(l). Accordingly, the court dismisses the petition for writ of mandamus. PETITION DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?