In re: Gyamfi v. , 362 F. App'x 385 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
______________
No. 10-1093
_____________
In Re: KWAME GYAMFI,
Petitioner.
_____________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
_____________
Submitted: January 21, 2010 Decided: January 22, 2010
_____________
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
_____________
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_____________
Kwame Gyamfi, Petitioner Pro Se.
_____________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kwame Gyamfi petitions for writ of mandamus pursuant to the
Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (“CVRA”). He
asserts that he is entitled to mandamus relief because the
district court denied his motion for default judgment on his
complaint seeking civil damages from the United States
government for an alleged violation of his rights under the
Taxpayer Bill of Rights, 26 U.S.C. § 7433. Petitioner asserts
that Internal Revenue Service employees have violated numerous
criminal statutes in connection with collection of taxes owed by
him and in defending the civil suit he filed below.
Petitioner’s request for mandamus relief is denied. We
note that Gyamfi did not first assert the rights described in
§ 3771(a) of the CVRA in the district court as required by
§ 3771(d)(3). Section 3771(d)(3) provides that a movant may
petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus only where
the district court has denied the relief sought by motion
asserting a victim’s right.
In any event, petitioner was not entitled to the
protections of 18 U.S.C. § 3771 in his district court
proceedings which were civil in nature. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3771(d)(3). The CVRA was designed to protect victims and
guarantee them some involvement in the criminal justice process.
“The rights codified by the CVRA, however, are limited to the
2
criminal justice process; the Act is therefore silent and
unconcerned with victims’ rights to file civil claims.” United
States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234-35 (4th Cir. 2007)
(citation omitted).
Finding no application of 18 U.S.C. § 3771 to these
proceedings, we deny the petition.
PETITION DENIED
3