Kenna v. United States District Court for the Central District

Ninth Circuit

Kenna v. United States District Court for the Central District

453 F.3d 1136, 2006 WL 1897095

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 5, 2006

Docket06-73352

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 453 F.3d 1136 (Kenna v. United States District Court for the Central District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kenna v. United States District Court for the Central District, 453 F.3d 1136, 2006 WL 1897095 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to the Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (“CVRA”). Under the CVRA, we must decide this petition “within 72 hours after the petition has been *1137 filed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3); Kenna I, 435 F.3d at 1018. Moreover, if we deny the relief sought, “the reasons for the denial shall be clearly stated on the record in a written opinion.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3).

Petitioner W. Patrick Kenna (“Kenna”) requests that we order the district court to release the entire presentence report (“PSR”) of criminal defendant Zvi Leichner to him. The district court rejected Kenna’s argument that § 3771 of the CVRA confers a general right for crime victims to obtain disclosure of the PSR. Failing to find support for Kenna’s argument in either the language of the statute or the legislative history, we agree. See, e.g., 150 Cong. Rec. S. 4260, 4268 (2004). Additionally, the district court found that Kenna has not demonstrated that his reasons for requesting the PSR outweigh the confidentiality of the report under the traditional “ends of justice” test. See United States v. Anzalone, 886 F.2d 229, 233 (9th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Schlette, 842 F.2d 1574, 1584, amended, 854 F.2d 359 (9th Cir.1988) (“[A] central element in the showing required of a third person seeking disclosure is the degree to which the information in the presentence report cannot be obtained from other sources.”) (quoting United States v. Charmer Indus., Inc., 711 F.2d 1164, 1177 (2d Cir.1983)). We note that Kenna refused the district court’s offer to consider disclosure of specific portions of the PSR.

We have reviewed the record and we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion or commit legal error. See Kenna I, 435 F.3d at 1017(noting that on reviewing a mandamus petition under the CVRA, this court must issue the writ “whenever we find that the district court’s order reflects an abuse of discretion or legal error”). Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

DENIED. 2

2

. Petitioner's request that we stay the sentencing of Zvi Leichner pending our decision on this case is denied as moot.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION AND ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to the Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (“CVRA”). Under the CVRA, we must decide this petition “within 72 hours after the petition has been *1137 filed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3); Kenna I, 435 F.3d at 1018. Moreover, if we deny the relief sought, “the reasons for the denial shall be clearly stated on the record in a written opinion.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3).

Petitioner W. Patrick Kenna (“Kenna”) requests that we order the district court to release the entire presentence report (“PSR”) of criminal defendant Zvi Leichner to him. The district court rejected Kenna’s argument that § 3771 of the CVRA confers a general right for crime victims to obtain disclosure of the PSR. Failing to find support for Kenna’s argument in either the language of the statute or the legislative history, we agree. See, e.g., 150 Cong. Rec. S. 4260, 4268 (2004). Additionally, the district court found that Kenna has not demonstrated that his reasons for requesting the PSR outweigh the confidentiality of the report under the traditional “ends of justice” test. See United States v. Anzalone, 886 F.2d 229, 233 (9th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Schlette, 842 F.2d 1574, 1584, amended, 854 F.2d 359 (9th Cir.1988) (“[A] central element in the showing required of a third person seeking disclosure is the degree to which the information in the presentence report cannot be obtained from other sources.”) (quoting United States v. Charmer Indus., Inc., 711 F.2d 1164, 1177 (2d Cir.1983)). We note that Kenna refused the district court’s offer to consider disclosure of specific portions of the PSR.

We have reviewed the record and we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion or commit legal error. See Kenna I, 435 F.3d at 1017(noting that on reviewing a mandamus petition under the CVRA, this court must issue the writ “whenever we find that the district court’s order reflects an abuse of discretion or legal error”). Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

DENIED. 2

2

. Petitioner's request that we stay the sentencing of Zvi Leichner pending our decision on this case is denied as moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

453 F.3d 1136, 2006 WL 1897095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenna-v-united-states-district-court-for-the-central-district-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack