Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason CAVEZZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-19
Citations: 604 F. App'x 574
Docket Number: No. 14-30111
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason CAVEZZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 574–574

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason CAVEZZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-30111.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2015.
Filed May 19, 2015.
John C. Laing, Assistant U.S., Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason Cavezza, Philipsburg, PA, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, 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
Federal prisoner Jason Cavezza appeals, pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider its April 29, 2014, order directing the Clerk to return funds to Cavezza that he had sent to the court with a request for copies of certain documents. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cavezza contends that the district court should have directed the Clerk to provide him with "certified" copies of certain documents from his criminal case file or with a "certified" letter stating that the requested documents did not exist. We review the district court's denial of the motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Tapia-Marquez, 361 F.3d 535, 537 (9th Cir.2004). The district court did not abuse its discretion because Cavezza has failed to show that he is entitled to certified copies of the documents or the letter he requested. To the extent that Cavezza petitions this court for a writ of mandamus, he has not demonstrated that he is entitled to that extraordinary remedy. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir.1977).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.