UNPUBLISHED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Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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