Whether the government can use a joint task force and the same prosecution team to prosecute a citizen in state and federal court at the same time

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; A federally funded, Mortgage Fraud Task ; Force (Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant # 2009-SC-B9-0080) prosecuted 1,000 citizens, including the Petitioner, who was : tried in both state and federal court on identical charges by the same prosecution team. The Petitioner was convicted in federal court and sentenced to 150 months in prison, USA ; v. Viola, 08-cr-506, N.D. Ohio. Two months later, using evidence not provided before the first trial, Petitioner was acquitted , on the exact same charges, Ohio v. Viola, # 536877. No evidentiary hearing has ever been granted and Petitioner has not been permitted to present the same proof of his innocence in federal court that he used at his second trial. Petitioner's : § 2241 Petition seeking an evidentiary hearing was denied . and this appeal follows, raising the following questions: (1) In its previous term, the Court held that successive : prosecutions in both state and federal court were permitted, but this case involves simultaneous prosecutions in both state and federal court by a joint task force. Is the government allowed to use a joint task force and the same prosecution team to prosecute a citizen in state and federal court at the same time? : (2) The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether a prisoner . can obtain habeas relief based upon a freestanding claim of actual innocence, House v. Bell, 547 UYS. 518 (2006). Do the facts in the petitioner's case warrant the Court's examination . . of this issue? (3) Petitioner's case contains multiple fundamental defects om the record, including the results of the second trial, but the Circuits are split concerning the limited circumstances when prisoners can use a § 2241 petition to challenge a conviction, : Roundtree v. Krueger, 910 F.3d 312, 313 (7th Cir., 2018)(collecting cases). Circuits are also split over whether § 2241 is available to state prisoners, compare Cook v. N.Y. State, 321 F.3d 274, 278 (2d Cir. 2003) with Rittenberry v. Morgan, 468 F.3d 331, 336 (6th Cir. 2006). Does the Court wish to resolve these circuit splits? : . ’ QPINIONS BELOW Petitioner respectfully requests that a Writ of Certiorari oo . issue to review the February 15, 2019 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. : . PARTIES AND JURISDICTION All parties are identified on the cover page of this Petition. : : This Court has Jurisdiction to review the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS AT ISSUE HEREIN This Petition concerns the 5th Amendment's guarantee : of due process of law, as well as that Amendment's prohibition against being prosecuted twice for the same offense. This Petition also concerns the rights of prisoners to submit habeas petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. , INDEX TO APPENDICES