In re: William Bond v. , 547 F. App'x 348 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2462
In re: William C. Bond,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:05-cr-00358-JFM)
Submitted: December 6, 2013 Decided: December 6, 2013
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William C. Bond, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 William C. Bond 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 may 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.
Bond filed a Motion for Relief under the Crime Victim's
Rights Act in the district court on November 20, 2013 alleging
that the Maryland U.S. Attorney's Office is violating his rights
under the Crime Victim's Rights Act, and the rights of all the
citizens of Maryland, by failing to protect them from judicial
misconduct of federal judges and misconduct by "incompetent and
2
unethical attorneys." Bond has been attempting to intervene in
the underlying criminal case since 2009, to unseal documents which
he claims will show misconduct on the part of judges and
attorneys in the case. (Bond is named as an "interested party"
on the docket sheet of the underlying criminal case.) The
district judge denied the motion on November 21, 2013, by
handwriting the word "denied" on the first page of the motion
without further discussion (see attached).
Petitioner filed the petition for writ of mandamus pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §3771, Crime Victims' Rights in this court on
December 5, 2013 at 3:21 p.m. According to Bond, this case
involves "a highly publicized Maryland political corruption case
in which a total of nine people were prosecuted and convicted by
the Government." Bond had been attempting to intervene in this
case for many years to unseal the record in the criminal case.
In 2009, the district court denied his motion to intervene and
unseal "attorney disqualification" and "prosecutorial
misconduct" documents, and this court, in 09-7572, in an
unpublished per curiam opinion, affirmed for the reasons stated
by the district judge (see docket entry 221 of the district
court docket, entered July 16, 2009.) Petitioner is now
attempting to relitigate these same issues by claiming his
status as "crime victim" under the Crime Victim's Rights Act and
alleging that the Maryland U.S. Attorney's Office owes a duty to
him, and the other citizens of Maryland, to protect them from
3
the federal judges who have "repetitiously violated 28 U.S.C.
§455," pertaining to the disqualification of judges.
Petitioner is not a crime victim under the Crime Victim's
Rights Act. He was not the victim in the underlying criminal
matter- he is listed on the district court docket as "an
interested party." His failed attempts to intervene in the
criminal case do not make him a crime victim, nor do the alleged
denials of his rights under the Crime Victim's Rights Act
bootstrap him to this status. By his own admission, "there is
no prosecution to be as yet underway." The rights he seeks-
unsealing of documents and protection "from two Article III
judges who have repetitiously violated 28 U.S.C. 455" are not
rights enumerated in 18 U.S.C. 3771(a).
Accordingly, the court denies petitioner's application to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses the petition for writ of
mandamus.
DISMISSED
4