No. 18-9412

Amin A. Rashid v. United States

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2019-05-24
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: criminal-act criminal-act-concealment due-process evidentiary-hearing exoneration fundamental-defect judicial-misconduct mail-fraud miscarriage-of-justice neutral-judge section-2255 standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2019-12-06 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether Undisputed Evidence Suggesting That The Trial Judge Was Acting To Conceal A Criminal Act Committed By Prior Judges In The Case Which Act If Adjudicated Would Exonerate The Defendant Is The Kind Of Fundamental Defect In The Proceedings That Inherently Results In A Complete Miscarriage Of Justice Warranting At Least The Grant Of An Evidentiary Hearing Before A Neutral Judge?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Whether Undisputed Evidence Suggesting That The Trial Judge | . Was Acting To Conceai A Criminal Act Committed By Prior Judges In : The Case Which Act If Adjudicated Would Exonerate The Defendant Is The Kind Of Fundamental Defect In The Proceedings That Inherently Results In A Complete Miscarriage Of Justice Warranting At Least The Grant Of An evidentiary Hearing Before A Neutral Judge? 2. Whether The Grand Jury's Failure To Charge In The Indictment Use Of The Postal Service Or United States Mail, In A Mail Fraud Case, And The Government's Failure To Prove Use Of The Postal . Service Or United States Mail, In The Same Mail Fraud Case, Is The : Kind Of Fundamental Defect In The Proceedings That Inherently Results ( In A Complete Miscarriage Of Justice Warranting Grant Of A Motion ‘ To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence? 3. Whether The Federal Prosecutor's Use Of Perjury And Subornation Of Perjury Material To The Government's Case Is The Kind Of Fundamentai Defect In The Proceedings That Inherently Results In A Complete : Miscarriage Of justice Warranting Grant Of A Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence? 43 Whether The Failure To Grant A Petitioner An Evidentiary Hearing In A Section 2255 Proceeding Where There Are Issues Of Disputed Facts And The Files And Records Do not Conclusively Show That Petitioner Is . Entitled To No Relief Is The Kind Of Defect In The Proceedings That . ; Inherently Results In A Complete Miscarriage Of Justice Warrenting:The Issuance oF A Certificate Of Appealability? . . _

Docket Entries

2019-12-09
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
2019-11-20
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2019.
2019-10-29
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2019-10-07
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
2019-06-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-07
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-02-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 24, 2019)

Attorneys

Amin A. Rashid
Amin A. Rashid — Petitioner
Amin A. Rashid — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent