Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 817

法庭文件 · 2026-03-16 · 42 页 · United States District Court · S.D.N.Y.

pro se mandamusTony petitionerCVRASection 3771(d)(3)Section 3771(a)(4)Section 853(n)clerk docketingJanuary 20 status conference

A third party petitions the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus, asking it to order the district court to accept and docket filings that were previously rejected or not entered.

摘要

Pro Se Petition for Writ of Mandamus · "Tony"

This 42-page document is a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus filed by petitioner identified as "Tony" (real name protected) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Case No. 26-361, docketed February 18, 2026) related to United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.).

Statutory Basis

The petition is brought under:

18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), which expressly authorizes crime victims to seek mandamus relief to enforce CVRA-guaranteed rights;
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21.

The petitioner self-identifies as a crime victim within the meaning of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e).

I. Introduction · Filings Submitted to SDNY

The petition reports that the petitioner has submitted multiple filings to the SDNY pro se email, including several sealed documents (Exhibits A–C) and one public document (Exhibit D). These filings raise issues affecting the petitioner's property rights under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and the CVRA:

Exhibit A: Submitted pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n);
Exhibits B, C, and D: Submitted pursuant to the CVRA.

The petition reports that despite repeated attempts over several months, none of these filings has been docketed, adjudicated, or otherwise acknowledged by the district court.

The January 20, 2026 Status Conference

The petition references the January 20, 2026 status conference, characterizing the court's representations there in two ways:

The petition reports that the district court represented that pro se petitions submitted under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) — including those filed by individuals without counsel — are being processed and will be docketed in due course. The petition states the petitioner relies on that representation in expecting his § 853(n) petition (Exhibit A) will be docketed and adjudicated.
The petition states that the status conference transcript contains no reference whatsoever to the CVRA. The only characterization addressing the petitioner's filings, according to the petition, was the Court's generalized statement that it had received numerous "complaints." The petition argues that by omitting any reference to the CVRA and by characterizing victim-rights submissions as "complaints," the Court effectively downgraded CVRA filings to a category that does not carry any assurance of docketing or adjudication.

The petition argues that the petitioner's CVRA submissions (Exhibits B–D), especially Exhibit D, remain undocketed and unaddressed. The petition characterizes this as depriving the petitioner of statutory rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4) to be reasonably heard, and as reflecting a procedural framework under which CVRA motions — unlike § 853(n) petitions — are neither guaranteed entry on the docket nor meaningful judicial consideration.

Issue Presented

The petition formulates the issue as: whether mandamus relief is warranted where the district court gave formal docketed consideration to certain submissions materially affecting sentencing in United States v. Kwok et al. but treats CVRA submissions as "complaints" outside the docketing system, thereby foreclosing appellate review of any denial of CVRA rights.

Petitioner's Argument

The petition argues:

The district court's non-docketing and downgrading of the petitions under CVRA to "complaints" operates as a constructive denial of CVRA rights;
The treatment also destroys appellate reviewability by preventing any appealable order from ever issuing;
This petition does not seek any factual disputes arising from foreign proceedings, nor to adjudicate the merits of victim classification — it seeks only to prevent statutory rights under the CVRA from being extinguished by non-docketing.

Relief Requested

The petition asks the Second Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus protecting the petitioner's CVRA rights from being extinguished by non-docketing — an order ensuring that statutory CVRA rights are not lost through procedural non-action.

查看原始文档 ↗

Summary