UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1873
In Re: DEMETRIUS JAROD SMALLS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(2:13-cv-02651-RMG)
Submitted: August 7, 2015 Decided: August 7, 2015
Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Demetrius Jarod Smalls, Petitioner Pro Se.
_______________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Demetrius Smalls 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 Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) because the district court
denied his petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254 for a writ habeas
corpus without conducting a hearing on the merits of his claims.
He further alleges that the district court committed fraud "and
other criminal offenses" including "conspiracy to kidnap,
kidnapping, [and] conspiracy to deprive person of civil right
under color of federal law", and that state officials are also
guilty of fraud and perjury. Smalls did not file a petition for
writ of mandamus raising the CVRA in the district court.
Petitioner is not a crime victim under the CVRA, and the
denial of his habeas corpus petition does not make him a crime
victim. His mandamus petition attacks the district court's
decision to deny his habeas corpus petition, which decision was
upheld by this court on appeal (Case No. 14-7620). While the
CVRA does cover federal habeas corpus proceedings arising out of
a state conviction (18 U.S.C. §3771(b)(2)), the definition of
crime victim under this subsection "means the person against
whom the State offense is committed or, if that person is killed
or incapacitated, that person's family member or other lawful
representative". 18 U.S.C. §3771(b)(2)(D). Smalls clearly does
not fit within this definition. Furthermore, Smalls did not
file a petition in the district court under the CVRA as required
by 18 U.S.C. §3771(d)(3).
Accordingly, the court dismisses the petition for writ of
mandamus.
PETITION DISMISSED