of review is the usual standard for mandamus petitions, as set forth in In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir.2008). “A writ of mandamus may issue 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.’ ” Id. at 394 (quoting In Re United States, 397 F.3d 274, 282 (5th Cir.2005)). In this case, the first requirement is fulfilled because the petitioner likely has no other means for obtaining review of the district court’s decision not to order restitution. See United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1311-16 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). However, we are not persuaded that the second
holding a deferred judgment is not a final judgment of sentence from which a defendant may appeal under iowa code section 8146 holding that an order not denominated a judgment is not final for purposes of appeal holding that a victim may not bring an appeal from a final judgment in a criminal case asserting that her rights under  3771 were violated holding that final judgment in a criminal case means sentence recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment