In re: Kunta Kenta Redd, No. 16-2451 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 16-2451 (7:08-cr-00043-D-1) ___________________ In re: KUNTA KENTA REDD,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 ____________________ Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ____________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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, in to notice of court proceedings, to participation court proceedings, to confer with government counsel, to receive restitution, to proceedings free delay, and to be treated with fairness. from unreasonable 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). These rights must be asserted in the district court and, if the district court the court denies relief, movant may petition of appeals for a writ of mandamus. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). If such a petition appeals shall take up and decide within 72 the hours after is filed, such "[t]he application the petition has been filed." court of forthwith 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. 2 He challenges the 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. and sentence proceedings. on appeal He has challenged his conviction and in various post-conviction 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). the statutory definition. R e d d clearly does not come within 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 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
