Finally, LOT argues that the text and purpose of the CVRA foreclose laches, noting that the statute itself does not set any time limitations, and emphasizing that the CVRA was intended to afford victims rights, not restrict or narrow them. However, the CVRA does contain several, specific time limitations—such as those that govern when a victim can seek to reopen a plea or sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3)—even if none explicitly relates to a "time limit within which putative crime victims must seek relief in the district court," In re Allen, 701 F.3d 734, 735 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Indeed, we expressly left the door open to the possibility that a particularly "inconvenient delay . . . could trigger the doctrine of laches or some other legal principle that might bar a request for crime victim status" under the CVRA.
A writ of mandamus is appropriate only if: "(1) the petitioner has no other adequate means to attain the desired relief; (2) the petitioner has demonstrated a right to the issuance of a writ that is clear and indisputable; and (3) the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, is satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances." In re Allen, 701 F.3d 734, 735 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Attorney General has not satisfied any of the three elements of mandamus review.
In considering the record before us, and mindful of the mandamus posture of this matter, we conclude that Petitioners have not shown that the district court clearly and indisputably erred in finding that "the complication and prolongation of the sentencing process" involved in fashioning a restitution order for lifetime medical monitoring outweighed the need for such restitution in this case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(1)(B)(ii); In re Allen, 701 F.3d 734, 735 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008)). In reaching this finding, the court held hearings, received over 800 victim impact statements, heard expert testimony from Citgo's and the Government's experts, heard oral testimony from over 90 members of the community, allowed the parties and victims extensive briefing on restitution, and issued a twenty-page written opinion.
Importantly, the Court does not believe the Fifth Circuit's timeliness analysis in In re Allen is applicable in this case. 701 F.3d 734, 734-35 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). There, the Circuit held that the movants' four-year delay in seeking recognition as crime victims was not barred by laches because the defendant's criminal sentencing hearing was still two months away.
Before a writ of mandamus may issue, the party requesting it must demonstrate (1) that there is no other adequate means to attain the desire relief, (2) that entitlement to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) that issuance is appropriate under the circumstances. In re Allen, 701 F.3d 734, 735 (5th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff has not shown that issuance of the writ is necessary or appropriate in the aid of this court's jurisdiction, that he lacks other means to achieve the relief requested, that he is clearly or indisputably entitled to have the writ issue for this purpose, or that issuance is appropriate under the circumstances.
The Fifth Circuit concluded that “[t]he CVRA does not contain a time limit within which putative crime victims must seek relief in the district court” and granted the Community Members' mandamus petition “to the extent that the district court must hear all new victim status arguments being submitted pre-sentencing by pro bono counsel.” In re: Jewell Allen, 701 F.3d 734, 735 (5th Cir.2012). II. Legal Standard