United States v. Israel Arreola-Contreras

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 09 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30406
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 6:03-cr-60082-HO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ISRAEL ARREOLA-CONTRERAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann Aiken, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
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-
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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. § 1361. Arreola-
Contreras has not established that he is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of
mandamus. See Fallini v. Hodel, 783 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1986)
(“Mandamus relief is only available . . . if (1) the plaintiff’s 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.
2 12-30406