{"id":"court_sdny_868_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":868,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2026-08-06","title":"Case: 26-563, Case:       05/15/2026,","summary_zh":"上诉法院执行令 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118-AT ECF #868（2026-08-06立案）。第二巡回上诉法院就六名自辩请愿人并案提起的履行令（mandamus）请愿下达执行令，驳回其要求地方法院登记并审理涉没收资产第三方主张、以及要求法官回避等请求；就登记与审理两项，裁定注明不影响在合理期限内重新提出。涉及个人身份信息的封存与隐匿动议获部分准予。","summary_en":"Second Circuit Mandate — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118-AT ECF #868 (filed Aug 6, 2026). The Second Circuit issues its mandate on the tandem mandamus petitions of six pro se petitioners, denying their requests to compel the district court to docket and consider third-party forfeiture claims and to compel judicial recusal; as to docketing and consideration, the denial is expressly without prejudice to renewal within a reasonable time. Related motions to seal or redact personal identifying information are granted in part.","body_en":"Case: 26-563,\n                       Case:       05/15/2026,\n                             26-563,           DktEntry:\n                                     08/06/2026,         36.1, Page\n                                                 DktEntry:       (1 of13)\n                                                                        of 3\n            Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT    Document 868     Filed54.1,\n                                                            08/06/26      Page 1 of 3\n\nMANDATE                    United States Court of Appeals\n                                                                              S.D.N.Y. – N.Y.C.\n                                                                                      23-cr-118\n                                                                                      Torres, J.\n\n                                              FOR THE\n                                        SECOND CIRCUIT\n                                        _________________\n                                                                                         Aug 06 2026\n                   At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second\n     Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,\n     in the City of New York, on the 15th day of May, two thousand twenty-six.\n\n     Present:\n                    Amalya L. Kearse,\n                    John M. Walker, Jr.,\n                    Raymond J. Lohier, Jr.,\n                         Circuit Judges.\n\n     In Re: Jason Zen,                                                  25-3046 (Tandem)\n\n                                Petitioner.\n\n     In Re: Chunk Chyi,                                                 26-77 (Tandem)\n\n                                Petitioner.\n\n     In Re: Tony,                                                       26-361 (Tandem)\n\n                                Petitioner.\n\n     In Re: Doe,                                                        26-364 (Tandem)\n\n                                Petitioner.\n\n     In Re: Carolyn Sun,                                                26-441 (Tandem)\n\n                                Petitioner.\n\nMANDATE ISSUED ON 08/06/2026\n\nCase: 26-563,\n                   Case:       05/15/2026,\n                         26-563,           DktEntry:\n                                 08/06/2026,         36.1, Page\n                                             DktEntry:       (2 of23)\n                                                                    of 3\n        Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT    Document 868     Filed54.1,\n                                                        08/06/26      Page 2 of 3\n\nIn Re: DX,                                                                     26-563 (Tandem)\n\n                               Petitioner.\n\nPetitioners, proceeding pro se in these matters designated to proceed in tandem, petition for a writ\nof mandamus. Petitioners Zen, Tony, Doe, Sun, DX, and Chyi seek to compel the district court\nto docket and consider their third-party pro se submissions asserting claims to forfeited funds in\nthis criminal case. Petitioners Zen and Chyi seek to compel the district court judge’s recusal from\nthe case. Petitioner Zen seeks to compel the district court to seal or remove certain unredacted\ndocuments. Petitioner Chyi seeks vacatur or suspension of an April 2025 order imposing a\nrequirement that before accepting any of his future submissions for filing, the district court would\nscreen those submissions to ensure that they were made in good faith. In addition to these\nmandamus petitions, Petitioners Zen and DX move for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status; Petitioners\nZen, Tony, Doe, Sun, and DX move to seal or redact filings in this Court containing their personal\nidentifying information; Petitioner Tony requests that we sua sponte correct and clarify the record\nbefore any appellate consideration; Petitioner DX moves for leave to file supplemental papers in\nsupport of his mandamus petition, to proceed by pseudonym, and for permission to file\nelectronically; and Petitioners Sun, Tony, Doe, and Chyi move to stay district court proceedings\npending decision on their mandamus petitions.\n\nUpon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the mandamus petitions are DENIED\nbecause Petitioners have not demonstrated that they lack an adequate, alternative means of\nobtaining relief, that their right to the writ is clear and indisputable, and that granting the writ is\nappropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–\n81 (2004). In view of the large number of submissions received by the district court, which we\ntrust the court will address expeditiously, Petitioners’ mandamus petitions as to docketing their\nsubmissions are denied without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to docket the\nsubmissions within a reasonable time. Likewise, the denial as to the district court’s failure to\nconsider Petitioners’ submissions is without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to\nconsider them within a reasonable time after sentencing in the underlying criminal case. See id.;\nUnited States v. Magassouba, 544 F.3d 387, 411 n.16 (2d Cir. 2008).\n\nPetitioner DX’s IFP motion is hereby DENIED as moot because DX has since paid the filing fee,\nand Petitioner Zen’s IFP motion is GRANTED for purposes of filing the mandamus petition. The\nmotions of Tony, Doe, Sun, and DX to seal or redact are GRANTED, in part, insofar as they seek\nto redact personal identifying information as set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure\n49.1(a). See Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(5) (incorporating Rule 49.1(a) by reference). Petitioner Zen’s\nmotions to seal and redact are DENIED insofar as the district court has already redacted his\npersonal identifying information, Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 770, 745, and as they relate to submissions by\nother individuals, Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 765. Petitioner Sun’s motion to seal her notice of appearance\nis GRANTED. DX’s motions for leave to file supplemental papers in support of his mandamus\npetition are GRANTED, and we have considered those supplemental papers. Finally, DX’s\nmotions to proceed by pseudonym and for permission to file electronically and Sun’s, Tony’s,\n\n                                                  2\n\nCase: 26-563,\n                  Case:       05/15/2026,\n                        26-563,           DktEntry:\n                                08/06/2026,         36.1, Page\n                                            DktEntry:       (3 of33)\n                                                                   of 3\n       Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT    Document 868     Filed54.1,\n                                                       08/06/26      Page 3 of 3\n\nDoe’s, and Chyi’s motions to stay district court proceedings are DENIED as moot.\n\n                                           FOR THE COURT:\n                                           Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court\n\n                                              3","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Pro Se","pro se","Torres"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":8,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":765,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":770,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":761,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-08-06 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-08-06","updated_at":"2026-08-28 22:16:49"}