Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 863

摘要

Pro Se Petition for Writ of Mandamus · Second Circuit

A 56-page submission filed on the district court docket in United States v. Miles Guo, 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.), on July 9, 2026, comprising a petition for a writ of mandamus addressed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (40 Foley Square, New York), together with supporting motions and exhibits. The cover letter is dated July 4, 2026. The document is a scan of handwritten and form filings; the text below reflects what is legible.

The archived copy is an OCR of a scanned filing, so wording is approximate in places.

Petitioners and Respondent

The petition is captioned Jun Zhou and Tang Xuchui, Petitioners, v. United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Respondent, referencing Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-1 (AT). The petitioners proceed pro se (without counsel, representing themselves).

Basis of the Claim

Petitioners describe themselves as third-party claimants under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c), asserting a property right in G-Series investment funds, stating an investment purpose and expressly positioning themselves as non-CVRA claimants with respect to the defendant. They invoke the Second Circuit's authority to issue the writ under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), on the ground that the underlying action lies within its appellate jurisdiction.

Grievance

Petitioners state they timely filed a petition with the S.D.N.Y., but that the district court "suppresses Petitioners' legitimate claims and refuses to docket it despite Petitioners' multiple requests," including copies submitted by email to the Clerk's Office. They assert the district court has violated a clear, non-discretionary statutory command under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)(1), which they read as requiring an ancillary proceeding once a third party files. As of the filing, they state, these petitions remain undocketed, depriving them of due process.

The framing of the issue on appeal is whether the court of appeals should issue the writ to compel ancillary proceedings under Rule 32.2(c), where the lower court's premature final judgment and refusal to hear their asserted superior rights amount to a severe deprivation of due process. Petitioners further state that the withholding of the claimed funds has inflicted acute personal hardship, describing capital urgently needed to fund a life-saving cell therapy costing approximately $200,000 for a family member.

Prayer for Relief

Petitioners request that the court:

• Stay the sentencing until all § 853(n) petitions are adjudicated;
• Order the Clerk to docket the submissions; and
• Conduct the mandatory ancillary proceedings.

The declaration under penalty of perjury is executed April 21, 2026.

Accompanying Motions and Exhibits

The package includes an Affidavit Accompanying Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (28 U.S.C. § 1746; 18 U.S.C. § 1621), in which petitioners list assets as none apart from the third-party property claim under § 853(n) to G-Series investment funds, described as currently suppressed and withheld. Exhibits attached to the petition include earlier submissions to the district court, proof of delivery of those submissions, an emergency motion dated April 21, 2026, and the undocketed petition and emergency motion to stay filed in the district court. A certificate of service is included.

Note

This document is the petitioners' own filing; the characterisations of the district court's conduct are theirs. It records a request for relief, not a ruling. Personal identifiers appearing in the scanned forms are not reproduced here.