No. 19-8701

Roger Allen Raymond v. United States District Court for the District of South Dakota

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-06-15
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: aedpa Brady-violation constitutional-due-process due-process eighth-circuit exculpatory-evidence habeas-corpus post-conviction-relief prosecutorial-misconduct south-carolina successive-petition
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2021-01-08 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the State of South Carolina commits a final byte power against the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision is a second or successive habeas petition under the AEDPA (28 U.S.C. § 2244)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : | Cues hin ¢ WheTher The State o South, Onkol. comnites t Pa final byte Powe Aegith Gir, Chor Appeats ohased it Ss cre lion’ is & second OR Suecuspive Hob pati tiot under Thu prs ty Low of fFROW 2 eo ). hol dung Qenzqlher i Crosby ye us Sait ¢ cited, Gillisple v STeage done us Dist Lexis (16 In re’ Appeal from Ph Dist . rr a ( 1/9¢s¢¥ ~O1Y4i-CBK). (seenee QO-/3§3 Gs presently Pitifoncr Eomis Now Gre appeals “The order may fa, 20Q0 , aG~/AEZ Poa re Raymend 20.20 US, App. Lexis (Sase The ptbeion, Fe. wfc vy bun. 4 + i ios fing, GU c ts dented Taw prstibon for whan by Re pareh is te fo He ; ) Wha patter thet Wat oF Meurdarats , touch stem as Usunpilien E Purdr elwar abuse oF chscniles and presence f an Ssue oF Plast Impressions As mowing pat, Lay pest shew clear and indis polaldec cent te wtvtcite, a ve Atty I Gen, off US, S4% Fad se &3 igh a discovery queitien S . is of CtPreard inery Signifrecnee ones hare Exttrane need for cover ses oF SMT rendre (tuachstene is supervlsery cortrel seen Alen ~ Perini tad Fid La 8 (omer i970), Pecibronse raed Gonzalea, v Cresby bufore The distich Ot and Eighth Ope ward v Finsley 377 F3d T4,7aS 36 (Facey )petit uner dumenstrtled gausu fou Joi lrs fe PASE mn $F WG, and prejudice ressettng « Ete yg Fa nud on Thy Federal Court Habieus poreceedlas 5 te Mat Case FG ~ 104d. precluded merits decterm inclon vrs aA ere wi Here rt we + only hot fits tahy putihaner uras nef permited. yo mse GAS onkdi rod appeal (94to~ 1997, Here Thi Eighth Gin and Stafe resporses Shoes davoid Resfudicae, ducing get hopin St Gs-« milfar, (97 FRE OTF (3° 1999 )o# O52. morales v AS, 304 Fad Ww er zoca) Md Us ¥ Lamen, 2001 Us Dist COS AYACT / c reaopgour (Apr “4! pe2zprads uw sol myre porprh hue apse Coates sannbra ponunlpht amanp yan apr PAD peak of (for rms pon soar iday. WIM “APOPMOD : agg? StOXO~Y FHYDIS (Sade wef) Les hes Pad 7 ASE vopsoe) ay) 7S (ese ‘leg Pe 3504 PUI = pours ‘ARS “PAP py lomo “re wate poss 1 sKA09 [ 4] Is bE "y0057 foe S37 Aloe ho asn C3) L107 (2B WF (84 PEA S48 Turashoy n FOUL pagga & Ulavys BI MrSIPNORD SL pr ras. dan hy de)p 4 a5 nPo 2) smaderry Ay rdDw) [re PHAN pum MgO WIVES! ab qubs meeps Ps Larournsy pry s707> Ly pacoys poy tad prwadvro ayed tip wy, 48 cragnns Gh Sempra apoucepy> oN wR) 40 FTP goqued ve 4p 29719 % 2 sommad 20 woysdnsT) 4 pe tos 1 B1@ 124g * ST AD ASS page prpoaus loyspotmrmy 9 4 h3bIN aie) CEL 7 prs cL PIAS h TAPPUANET -Sxasgeonay py HD da nye um 1" aaa Cok ‘abepunpenp Jogos ges peg Pe Io oF pe pay Suaranys $2 Dud 99 97'* > papesin [ui 4? S4aata yyy JAPON SY -pauyndas asuodsay “(U8 d NOM Sanmmy Gooy Unpina ob. anypattns ‘omy “ray PAL ao es PYGA AB? 41M IDI SP Bad pee posh pomprrord af 7Frr dD (EOd# 198) gorhoh £53 peddas-y bhi SION AIDON “APO onbongns preg] apne fr mpg 2 FAERIE ALI palies wg Srp DUHY s) ‘anes sf sam se (C59 Xdly p24 Seg ‘Sunaq s Coun) 1 L $52 PPI lo preys ppm MIYS HH 7 v nans bay fa ft" HIS PRONOMD 04 v4 SHPO PLAPITOMAN P2ePmurn Prrvyy a0 chi & pas og-pibp yin) caus ad PS to Yop my sont sytem rene ime Pee: tare ’ 2 ory 1 140 rf ey my omepg Bes oP Le He 42g fo 280o myp op mmuamia Sy! sy YY” 4 YS? ADD ce RLY 7 » * Baar aporaery thoy aren as. rel parretd ay $ magn ao ~° 4% Srna Phang york 14 tell ee ed rn i oboe ei 9 a “so Sau , pe res “puusnse i. ; 49 TOD a aR MPSRI 30 Mpg be Fay “Yr 09-454 “E9t eZ, ag | pera be wang [el] LBLAS $4810 $7 9106 ‘wpe a ULM 3S says) o5gp eo Ainp ‘suces hes S75 ‘A bros ot ; ay, p Aan ias ngioue Plane 5 teen cago pith eddy oa pistes orm sponeldy 0 sn9) 4YM493_Q | ha menn Aaa ; snstheprbsipelgiy a tadtouy sy gig eatin Me how 0 TH al eR . Do" Le “SS A AAD YA BE7RYD MD ALT np Ainj re |S» ee Wp PHOAS, ASRIG Va pre § °F ey Pom Rs Ep Wed wea EL Dress PY . **) PUL 2 5 MAP LOY Au Sayelspn sy = EIpe 136) OAs ees PES ela 'uvay 6 hogmep. ara pomp -! povepung > In3e0 resent pre sma WIP sage) 2p. pare pabe yevug, 3704S prn sak MMM (woinag and ) (e%_,8} hig 418 PED ROE en» pho nsadwion sonnet pICENO® LAA) 096 PEACE 'yrapsaMim]

Docket Entries

2021-01-11
Rehearing DENIED.
2020-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-10-26
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-07-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-05-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 15, 2020)

Attorneys

Roger Raymond
Roger Raymond — Petitioner
Roger Raymond — Petitioner