Summary
Summary being generated…
Document not found.
Document not found.
Summary being generated…
法庭文件 · 2026-04-24 · 54 页 · United States District Court · S.D.N.Y.
A pro se petitioner files a mandamus petition to the Second Circuit seeking to compel the district court to docket and adjudicate her victim restitution claims, asserting violations of her statutory rights and risk of losing her claimed investment.
This 54-page document is a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Mia Yang (real name protected) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Case No. 26-1072, docketed April 23, 2026) in connection with United States v. Miles Guo, SDNY Case 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT).
The petitioner seeks an order from the Second Circuit compelling the Clerk of the SDNY and/or Presiding Judge Analisa Torres to formally docket and adjudicate the petitioner's motions filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. The petition argues that despite multiple inquiries and a "Motion to Compel Docketing," the District Court has failed to perform its ministerial duty to docket these filings, violating the petitioner's statutory rights and causing irreparable harm through potential loss of claims.
The petition recites the procedural sequence:
Under the CVRA, the court "shall decide any motion asserting a victim's right" and shall do so "forthwith" (18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3)). The petition argues that by refusing to docket the motion, the District Court effectively denies the petitioner the right to be heard without creating a record — characterized as an abuse of discretion and a violation of due process.
The CVRA and MVRA grant victims the right to "full and timely restitution" (18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(6)). As the underlying criminal proceedings progress toward sentencing and final judgment, the petition argues that failure to docket creates a high risk that the petitioner's rights will be permanently extinguished or "lost" due to the finality of the court's upcoming orders.
The petitioner reports having exhausted all administrative and lower-court avenues, including informal inquiries and a formal motion to compel in the District Court. The petition characterizes mandamus as the only remaining vehicle to ensure the District Court complies with its statutory obligations.
The petition argues that under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), a person asserting a legal interest in forfeited property must be heard in an ancillary proceeding. By refusing to docket the October 14, 2025 filing, the District Court is proceeding toward final forfeiture without adjudicating the petitioner's claims. The petition characterizes this as a violation of the mandatory statutory scheme and a deprivation of Fifth Amendment due process — risking permanent loss of the petitioner's property without a day in court.
The Clerk's failure to docket the petitioner's timely filings creates what the petition calls a "silent record," effectively shielding the District Court's inaction from appellate oversight. The petition argues this prevents the formation of a complete and accurate record of the proceedings, essential for due process.
The petition asks the Second Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus directing the SDNY to docket and adjudicate the petitioner's filings under the CVRA, MVRA, and § 853(n).