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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Shapat Nabaya. [17-2018]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
In re: SHAPAT AHDAWAN NABAYA, a/k/a Norman Abbott,
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Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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
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
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
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.
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?