Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Supreme Court Petition – Copeland

Eleventh Circuit Appeal of Plea Agreement Rule 11

In 2011, a grand jury sitting in the Middle District of Florida returned a thirty-eight-count indictment, charging Copeland with eleven counts of mail fraud violating 18 U.S.C. § 1341, (Counts One through Eleven), sixteen counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Counts Twelve through Twenty-Seven), nine counts of aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (Counts Twenty-Eight through Thirty-Six), and two counts of making false claims against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287 (Counts Thirty-Seven and Thirty-Eight). Read Mr. Copeland’s Petition: Copeland Brief.

Criminal Plea Agreements in Federal Courts

Copeland entered into a written plea agreement with the Government. Id. Per the plea agreement, Copeland would plead guilty to Counts Twenty-Seven, Thirty-Six, and Thirty-Seven of the indictment. Id. at 3a. Subsequently, the Government would dismiss the remaining counts in the indictment. Id. Importantly, the Government stated that Copeland should receive a downward departure and a reduced sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility. Id. Given this notion, Copeland believed it was in his best interest to agree to enter a guilty plea. Id.

Sentencing Hearings in Federal Criminal Cases

On June 18, 2012, Copeland was sentenced to a total of 264 months imprisonment. App. 3a. Importantly, the PSI findings, which were ultimately adopted by the trial the judge, included two pre-indictment incidents. Carlos Dawson was a witness for the Petitioner at sentencing, however, he was prevented from offering mitigating evidence on behalf of the Petitioner. App. 36c. Both of these led to the PSI, including a U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 enhancement for obstruction of justice. Id. Moreover, the PSI did not include the U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 adjustment as promised by the Government. Id. The PSI stated that this § 3E1.1 adjustment was not initially included because Copeland did not truthfully admit all of his conduct nor did he voluntarily assist authorities in the investigation of the crimes charged. Id. at 37c.

First Appeal.

Soon thereafter, Copeland appealed the sentence to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stating that the Government breached the terms of the plea agreement by failing to recommend a three-level guideline reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Id.  United States v. Copeland, 520 F. App’x. 822, 823 (11th Cir. 2013). The Eleventh Circuit agreed and remanded the case for resentencing before a different judge. App. 3a; United States v. Copeland, 520 F. App’x. at 828.

Remand and Resentencing

Prior to the resentencing hearing, the Probation office revised the Presentence Investigation Report. App. 3a. Once again, the § 3C1.1 adjustment due to pre-indictment incidents. App. 4a. However, the promised § 3E1.1 downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility was applied, which resulted in a 235-293 sentencing range. Id. Ultimately, the court varied down to a total term of imprisonment of 204 months. Id.  Copeland appealed his sentence once more to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the court erred by applying the 3C1.1 enhance for obstruction of justice stemming from pre-indictment incidents.    App. 5a.

Second Appeal.

On March 19, 2015, the Court of Appeals dismissed Copeland’s appeal stating that:

Because Copeland did not challenge the district court’s initial decision to apply the enhancement when the opportunity existed in his first appeal, that decision is law of the case, and Copeland is deemed to have waived his right to challenge the enhancement on resentencing and in this appeal (Cites omitted).

 

Copeland’s Habeas Corpus Petition under § 2255.

On June 7, 2016, Copeland, pro se, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under § 2255. App 35c. Specifically, Copeland argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. App 38c. First, Copeland argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel promised an unrealistic sentence in order to induce a guilty plea that he would have otherwise not entered. Id. As a result, Copeland argued that he entered a plea unknowingly, involuntarily, and unintelligently. App. 42c. Specifically, Copeland informed the court that his previous counsel advised him that the maximum sentence he could receive under the plea agreement was 84 months imprisonment. App. 44c. However, according to his trial counsel, it was more likely that Copeland was going to receive closer to 60 months imprisonment given prior cases. Id. Importantly, Copeland testified to these facts in his sworn affidavit. App. 33-34c.

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/eleventh-circuit-court-of-appeals-supreme-court-petition-copeland/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com

Young Petition for Writ of Certiorari US Supreme Court

Boulder Young Petitions US Supreme Court to Overturn Criminal Federal Case

Petitioner Boulder Young, also known as Boulder Daniel McManigal [“Petitioner”], was indicted on May 24, 2017 for four counts relating to the distribution of methamphetamine. The indictment claimed that on three separate occasions, Petitioner sold methamphetamine to ATF agents or informants. The prosecution additionally asserted that Petitioner possessed a reputation for dangerousness, citing proffers provided by two of Petitioner’s supposed customers who were both under indictment for related drug charges at the time. Although Petitioner has never been convicted of a felony and possesses a very limited criminal history, the prosecution cited his firearms collection as further evidence of his supposedly violent character.

On August 2, 2017, Petitioner agreed to plead guilty to Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Substance , and signed a memorandum of the proposed plea agreement. The plea was entered on October 2, 2017. App. 1a. This offense carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months in prison. App. 3a. Paragraph 41 of this memorandum requires Petitioner to waive his right to appeal the conviction and the sentence involved. Furthermore, paragraph 41 stipulates that at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing the Court will note that Petitioner’s appellant rights are limited. The Magistrate Judge entered the guilty plea on October 2, and it was accepted by the District Court on October 18, 2017. App. 1a.

Right to Appeal Federal Conviction

On January 11, 2019, Petitioner was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 120 months in prison and five years of supervised release. App 8a. Counsel for Petitioner argued that the court should apply the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) safety valve provision, authorizing a sentence below the federal minimum. To be eligible for “safety valve” relief, defendant must have minimal criminal history and an offense which is nonviolent in nature. The court held that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof due to his possession of several firearms, and the fact that he was in the process of cleaning one of them during a federal drug deal. The judgment was entered on January 14, 2019.

 

Read more about the federal appeal: Young PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI to United States Supreme Court

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/young-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-us-supreme-court/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com

Longmire v. WARSHAW BURSTEIN COHEN SCHLESINGER & KUH, LLP

Eric Longmire Petitions United State Supreme Court in Case With Warshaw Berstein

Whether the State Appellate Division wrongfully denied Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Appeal when sua sponte and without notice to Petitioner, and without providing him an opportunity to respond, it determined that Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination against his former employer. Longmire Petitions the US Supreme Court in a case with Warshaw Berstein, and the Petition is attached here: PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI United States Supreme Court

New York Court of Appeals Opinion

The second question for review in the petition is:

Whether the State Appellate Division erred in affirming sua sponte and without notice to Petitioner, and without providing him an opportunity to respond, the decision and order of the motion court in dismissing Petitioner’s counterclaim for legal malpractice against the Respondent.

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/longmire-v-warshaw-burstein-cohen-schlesinger-kuh-llp/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com

Kyle Hurst v. United States Forest Service – Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Kyle Hurst Challenges Rainbow Family Immunity Ruling

The question presented in the petition is:

Whether the Eleventh Circuit wrongfully absolved Respondent of liability when it determined that Moore Lake was not an “area” where a fee was charged, or a part of an area used for commercial purposes.  Read the Petition here: Hurst Petition

The Rainbow Family has long history of violating the laws

Equally important, the Permit for the Rainbow Group covered “3 square miles”. 4 Since the distance to Moore Lake and Silver Lake is less than 1 nautical mile, the holding in Goodman means that the properties are the same “area” and the Permit covered activity at both Silver Lake and Moore Lake. The Eleventh Circuit failed to correctly apply Goodman for the following reasons:

1. A “fee” is charged for access to Silver Lake;
2. Moore Lake and Silver Lake are less than 1 mile apart;
3. Both Moore Lake and Silver Lake are covered by the plain language of the Permit, stating that activity of Rainbow Family is permitted up to “3 square miles” from Moore Lake.

The holding in Goodman means that USFS cannot avoid liability and the Eleventh Circuit opinion incorrectly interpreted federal law. The Court of Appeal’s decision strays from the factual issues in the case. The facts are clear that Moore Lake is a part of Silver Lake. Moore Lake is the camping compliment to Silver Lake.

 

Contact Robert Sirianni and Brownstone Law to discuss your Supreme Court Appeal.

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/kyle-hurst-v-united-states-forest-service-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com

Brownstone Law Files Petition to United States Supreme Court

Jackson v. United States Petition for Writ of Certiorari

The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Ruelas v. Wolfenbarger, 580 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 2009) acknowledged that this court’s seminal decision in Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007) did not overule Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12 (2003) (per curiam). In Ruelas, the Sixth Circuit held that a federal habeas court is free to apply the Esparza harmless error standard to determine whether a state court of appeals reasonably applied the Chapman harmless error standard on direct review. In the decision below, infra, App. 3a, the court of Appeals applied this standard. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court did not apply the Chapman harmless error standard on direct review.

Brownstone Law Petitions U.S. Supreme Court

Read more about the Petition here:  Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

This case presents the following questions:

 

1. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in applying the Esparza harmless error standard, instead of the Brecht harmless error standard on federal habeas review, when the state court failed to apply Chapman on direct review.

 

2. Whether a trial court’s erroneous denial of a request for a self-protection instruction as to the lesser included offenses of second-degree manslaughter and reckless homicide may be deemed harmless.

Contact Robert Sirianni to discuss more about your appeal.

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/brownstone-law-files-petition-to-united-states-supreme-court/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com

First Amendment Substantial Truth Defense

Supreme Court Writ on First Amendment

The August 14, 2019 Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denying Schiano’s Petition for enc banc review, which decision is herein sought to be reviewed was not published.  The June 7, 2019, Opinion of the Panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was unpublished, but can be found at Schiano v. Friedman, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17105 (11th Cir. 2019).  The September 26, 2017, Opinion of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida was unpublished, but can be found at Friedman v. Schiano, No. 16-cv-81975-BB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159584 (S.D. Fla. January 6, 2017).              The statutory provision believed to confer on this Court jurisdiction to review on a writ of certiorari the judgment or order in question is 28 U.S.C. §1257.  Read the writ here: Cert Petition- First Amendment

Whether substantial truth is a complete defense to defamation under the First Amendment, regardless of the motives of the speaker?

Schiano owned Hotwiremedia.com, a “party vendor directory” that sold listing space and banner advertisements on its website to service companies that catered to the party planning industry.  A few months after Schiano trained Freidman to maintain Hotwiremedia.com’s database and to sell vendor listings, Freidman represented to clients of HotWireMedia.com that Hotwiremedia.com was purchased by Friedman and Freidman’s Planningforevents.com company. Thereafter, Appellee Freidman charged Hotwiremedia.com clients’ credit cards for Freidman’s commissions and for banner ad upgrades. Schiano reported Friedman’s actions to the local Police Department and then started a webpage on the Hotwiremedia.com website documenting Appellee Freidman’s fraud. Thereafter, Appellee Freidman accused Appellant Schiano online of being, among other things, a child molester and rapist. Schiano’s business did not survive Freidman’s accusations, and he was forced to leave his home, opting to rent the property due to the loss of business. Schiano was forced to move from his home at 3840 Northwest 17th Avenue, Oakland Park, Florida 33334 to 400 NW 53rd Court, Oakland Park, Florida, 33309. As of December 12, 2016, Schiano’s usual place of abode was the property at 400 NW 53rd Street.

Schiano added that the District Court erroneously failed to recognize Schiano’s truth defense as a complete defense to allegations of defamation and failed to properly consider the economic burden imposed on Schiano by the $1,310,535.08 judgment and injunctions that permanently shut down Schiano’s business websites.

Contact Brownstone Law and Robert Sirianni to discuss a Supreme Court Writ (888) 233-8895.

 

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/supreme-court-first-amendment/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com

Test Post

rvtyrtyr styrty

from Blog https://www.brownstonelaw.com/test-post/
via https://www.brownstonelaw.com