--- type: court_doc id: "court_sdny_868_0" court: "SDNY" case_no: "23-cr-00118" doc_number: 868 doc_type: "ORDER" filed_date: "2026-08-06" lang: "en" machine_translated: false url: "https://mubeitech.com/en/court/court_sdny_868_0" json_url: "https://mubeitech.com/api/court/court_sdny_868_0" --- # Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — criminal case · ORDER · ECF #868 **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.** Case: 26-563, Case: 05/15/2026, 26-563, DktEntry: 08/06/2026, 36.1, Page DktEntry: (1 of13) of 3 Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 868 Filed54.1, 08/06/26 Page 1 of 3 MANDATE United States Court of Appeals S.D.N.Y. – N.Y.C. 23-cr-118 Torres, J. FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Aug 06 2026 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 15th day of May, two thousand twenty-six. Present: Amalya L. Kearse, John M. Walker, Jr., Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., Circuit Judges. In Re: Jason Zen, 25-3046 (Tandem) Petitioner. In Re: Chunk Chyi, 26-77 (Tandem) Petitioner. In Re: Tony, 26-361 (Tandem) Petitioner. In Re: Doe, 26-364 (Tandem) Petitioner. In Re: Carolyn Sun, 26-441 (Tandem) Petitioner. MANDATE ISSUED ON 08/06/2026 Case: 26-563, Case: 05/15/2026, 26-563, DktEntry: 08/06/2026, 36.1, Page DktEntry: (2 of23) of 3 Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 868 Filed54.1, 08/06/26 Page 2 of 3 In Re: DX, 26-563 (Tandem) Petitioner. Petitioners, proceeding pro se in these matters designated to proceed in tandem, petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioners Zen, Tony, Doe, Sun, DX, and Chyi seek to compel the district court to docket and consider their third-party pro se submissions asserting claims to forfeited funds in this criminal case. Petitioners Zen and Chyi seek to compel the district court judge’s recusal from the case. Petitioner Zen seeks to compel the district court to seal or remove certain unredacted documents. Petitioner Chyi seeks vacatur or suspension of an April 2025 order imposing a requirement that before accepting any of his future submissions for filing, the district court would screen those submissions to ensure that they were made in good faith. In addition to these mandamus petitions, Petitioners Zen and DX move for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status; Petitioners Zen, Tony, Doe, Sun, and DX move to seal or redact filings in this Court containing their personal identifying information; Petitioner Tony requests that we sua sponte correct and clarify the record before any appellate consideration; Petitioner DX moves for leave to file supplemental papers in support of his mandamus petition, to proceed by pseudonym, and for permission to file electronically; and Petitioners Sun, Tony, Doe, and Chyi move to stay district court proceedings pending decision on their mandamus petitions. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the mandamus petitions are DENIED because Petitioners have not demonstrated that they lack an adequate, alternative means of obtaining relief, that their right to the writ is clear and indisputable, and that granting the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380– 81 (2004). In view of the large number of submissions received by the district court, which we trust the court will address expeditiously, Petitioners’ mandamus petitions as to docketing their submissions are denied without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to docket the submissions within a reasonable time. Likewise, the denial as to the district court’s failure to consider Petitioners’ submissions is without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails to consider them within a reasonable time after sentencing in the underlying criminal case. See id.; United States v. Magassouba, 544 F.3d 387, 411 n.16 (2d Cir. 2008). Petitioner DX’s IFP motion is hereby DENIED as moot because DX has since paid the filing fee, and Petitioner Zen’s IFP motion is GRANTED for purposes of filing the mandamus petition. The motions of Tony, Doe, Sun, and DX to seal or redact are GRANTED, in part, insofar as they seek to redact personal identifying information as set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(a). See Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(5) (incorporating Rule 49.1(a) by reference). Petitioner Zen’s motions to seal and redact are DENIED insofar as the district court has already redacted his personal identifying information, Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 770, 745, and as they relate to submissions by other individuals, Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 765. Petitioner Sun’s motion to seal her notice of appearance is GRANTED. DX’s motions for leave to file supplemental papers in support of his mandamus petition are GRANTED, and we have considered those supplemental papers. Finally, DX’s motions to proceed by pseudonym and for permission to file electronically and Sun’s, Tony’s, Case: 26-563, Case: 05/15/2026, 26-563, DktEntry: 08/06/2026, 36.1, Page DktEntry: (3 of33) of 3 Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 868 Filed54.1, 08/06/26 Page 3 of 3 Doe’s, and Chyi’s motions to stay district court proceedings are DENIED as moot. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court