Free Remark - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-OO835;QFD Document 453 Filed O3/1.8/2005 Page 1 0f1 ` I Qi
SJ O _ I _ `I in Wm g
e—·»~.......e t 0 D-C¤11¤- of li·?·· Y
iii, zito . P , _h _ _ W y’“`! 00-cv-835
'P J `‘=‘ Droney, J.
’ H ` ?· iii Garlinkel, Mag.],
United States Court of Appeals t
- - son tue
SECOND CIRCUIT
. _ _At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thutgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in
the City of New York, on the sen day of Mnttca two thousand five;.
Present: I l ` _ l i
Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin,. I I -. »
I-Ion. Sonia Sotomayor, é_{.§""€€${";*·;;T 0r`;{p I
Circuit Judges, ,.§° F U, Q
· · U •
Hon. Miriam Goldman Cedatbaum, _ § - MAR .@gg5; °" ?"T\
` District Judge. ‘ et, ZTZ`i*i{-?. &§ i °"`°-
__ _;"'"~¤. ilqwgétéjttjlslx E-I
€Cos tn
In Re: Mustafa Reyad, _ E39.; (-, ©
wil? W
....4CZZ Q
Mustafa Reyad, jj Us
Plaintiff-Petitioner,
U V. ` l 04-5397-op
USA, _
I Defettdant·Resp0ndent.
Petitioners, pro se, have filed a petition for a writ of maudamus. Upon due consideratiott, it is _
ORDERED that the petition for tt writ of mandamus is denied, Petitionera have failed to ·
demonstrate that their tight to the issuance of a writ is clear and indisputable or that altemative
remedies are not available. See In re Steinkerdz Partners LP., 9 F.3d 230, 233 ¤[2d Cir. 1993). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner? motion for an expedited hearing is denied as moot. _
A ‘iP~Ui=‘i cw! FOR in-ta count: .
.;;ose.ann Bg e, CLERt< RDS lm B a$Kccbmc’ Clerk
we B@ { '-———-—~
' The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedatbaum, United States District Court for the
Southem District of New York, sitting by designation. ·
I
SAO·AL.u - ~ __ _ __
_ -· IFSUED l’lVM‘lNDArb"5/?/05
7 :¥ ·-;-·l—-¥-$- - - Y _ _ l
T ` a g § ,!,.,_,_,,.p,_,__,,,,__;____§=?;___ p _ · r - ee ¤ei+:e;=2;e=·e=<-e-eee
a..—. I. __
*—————?f -_:u ..l..,l__l_¥_ _ _ _ 7 _
’ i e { si §,:,-§,_.,,_,_,,__,,_,___t_§_¥L_ _ p t · e ierezeeezzeeeee