In re: Kunta Kenta Redd v. , 672 F. App'x 279 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 16-2451
(7:08-cr-00043-D-1)
___________________
In re: KUNTA KENTA REDD,
Petitioner.
___________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
___________________
Submitted: December 29, 2016 Decided: December 29, 2016
___________________
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and DIAZ, Circuit
Judges.
____________________
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
____________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
This case comes before the court on a petition for writ of
mandamus filed by Kunta Kenta Redd 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 alleged plea bargaining abuse. He
asserts that he should be allowed to reopen his plea and sentence.
He seeks to bring charges against certain “suspects” and against
an Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent. He challenges the
2
veracity of various suspects or informants. He asserts that the
district court and the court of appeals have erred in their
rulings involving his criminal case and implies the courts are
biased against him.
Petitioner is not a crime victim under the CVRA. He pled
guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of
conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to
distribute cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 846. He has challenged his conviction
and sentence on appeal and in various post-conviction
proceedings. 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). R e d d 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