Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02451/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02451-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kunta Kenta Redd
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 16-2451

(7:08-cr-00043-D-1)

___________________

In re: KUNTA KENTA REDD,

 Petitioner.

___________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

___________________

Submitted: December 29, 2016 Decided: December 29, 2016

___________________

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and DIAZ, Circuit 

Judges.

____________________

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

____________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2451 Doc: 4 Filed: 12/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

This case comes before the court on a petition for writ of 

mandamus filed by Kunta Kenta Redd under the Crime Victims' 

Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 ("CVRA"). The CVRA affords to

victims of crime the rights to reasonable protection from the 

accused, to notice of court proceedings, to participation

in court proceedings, to confer with government counsel, to

receive restitution, to proceedings free from unreasonable

delay, and to be treated with fairness. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a).

These rights must be asserted in the district court and, if

the district court denies relief, the movant may petition

the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. 18 U.S.C. §

3771(d)(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. If

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 maintains that he is entitled to relief under 

the CVRA as a result of alleged plea bargaining abuse. He 

asserts that he should be allowed to reopen his plea and sentence. 

He seeks to bring charges against certain “suspects” and against 

an Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent. He challenges the 

Appeal: 16-2451 Doc: 4 Filed: 12/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

veracity of various suspects or informants. He asserts that the 

district court and the court of appeals have erred in their 

rulings involving his criminal case and implies the courts are 

biased against him. 

Petitioner is not a crime victim under the CVRA. He pled 

guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of 

conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to 

distribute cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 846. He has challenged his conviction 

and sentence on appeal and in various post-conviction 

proceedings. The CVRA defines a “crime victim” as a “person 

directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of 

a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia.” 

18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(2)(A). Redd clearly does not come within

the statutory definition. The CVRA also provides that “[a] 

person accused of the crime may not obtain any form of relief 

under this chapter.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(l).

Accordingly, the court dismisses the petition for writ

of mandamus.

PETITION DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-2451 Doc: 4 Filed: 12/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 3