Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Israel ARREOLA-CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-09
Citations: 548 F. App'x 453
Docket Number: No. 12-30406
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Israel ARREOLA-CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 453–454

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Israel ARREOLA-CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-30406.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
Filed Dec. 9, 2013.
Amy Potter, Assistant U.S., United States Attorney’s Office, Eugene, OR, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of The U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Israel Arreola-Contreras, pro se.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Israel Arreola-Contreras appeals pro se from the district court's order affirming, upon reconsideration, its prior order denying his motion to compel the United States Probation Office for the District of Oregon to respond to the Bureau of Prisons' May 4, 2012, letter notifying the Probation Office of Arreola-Contreras's assertion that his presentence report contained incorrect information regarding his citizenship. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Contrary to Arreola-Contreras's contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1861. Arreola-Contreras has not established that he is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Fallini v. Hodel, 788 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir.1986) ("Mandamus relief is only available . if (1) the plaintiffs claim is clear and certain; (2) the duty of the officer is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) no other adequate remedy is available." (citations and internal quotations omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.