In re: Ross v.

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
__________________

No. 10-1587
__________________

In Re: DARNELL E. ROSS,

Petitioner.

__________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
__________________

Submitted: May 28, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010
__________________

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
__________________

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
__________________

Darnell E. Ross, Petitioner Pro Se.
__________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and a pro se petition for writ of mandamus purportedly

pursuant to the Crime Victim’s Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.

The Crime Victim’s Rights Act affords to victims of crime

the rights to receive notice of court proceedings, to be heard

at court proceedings, to confer with government counsel, to

receive restitution, to be free from unreasonable delay, and to

be treated with fairness. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). The Act

provides that these rights shall be asserted in the district

court and that “[i]f the district court denies the relief

sought, the movant may petition the court of appeals for a writ

of mandamus.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(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. Furthermore, “[i]f 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 Ross moves for relief from his state court

sentence for abduction with intent to defile on the ground that

his sentence was greater than that prescribed by the state

legislature for this crime.

2
 The statutory provision for expedited mandamus review of a

district court’s denial of rights asserted under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3771(a) has no application to the claims asserted by Ross.

Ross’s claims are attacks on the legality of his confinement,

which may be raised on direct appeal in state court, in state

post-conviction proceedings, or potentially in federal district

court in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He has not been

denied any rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) which could form the

basis for a mandamus petition to this Court.

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to proceed in

forma pauperis as moot, and dismisses this mandamus petition.

PETITION DISMISSED

3