Should a Writ of Certiorari Issue because the Sixth Circuit failed to apply the Pro-Se-Litigant-Standard to a Pro-Se-Defendant's-Pleadings

QUESTION PRESENTED. ‘ ; : OT. “Should a Writ of Certiorari Issué because thé Sixth Circurit failed'to apply . the Pro Se litigant standard to a Pro Se Defendant's pleadings? . . : Background : In May 2019, I filed a motion for a reduction of a sentence pursuant to the 18 USC 3582. ‘The District Court denied that motion on December 5, 2019. The “District Court mailed the order to-me.via ordinary mail on December 5, 2019. ' On January 24th, 2020, I mailed a letter to the District Court asking was the Order denying my sentence reduction appealable. The District Court received my a letter, which was postmarked January 30th, 2020, on February 7th, 2020. In turn, : the District Court treated the letter as a Notice of Appeal and filed it. On February 10, 2020, the Sixth Circuit mailed me a letter instructing me to place a signature on my Notice of Appeal and return by February 24th, 2020. On February 25th, 2020, the Sixth Circuit mailed me a briefing schedule with my first brief : due April 8th, 2020. I submitted my brief approximately one month before my : : due date. On May 7th, 2020, the government filed a Motion for Extension. This was. 1 four days before the government's brief was due. On May 28th, 2020, the government : filed a Motion to, Dismiss Appeal: as Untimely.. The Government cited Rule 4b of FRAP which states that a Court is required to dismiss’ late appeals if the , Government raises the issue of. timeliness. The Government states that my appeal was due no later than December 19th. The Sixth Cireutt sided with the Government. —— . : , Reasons for Granting the Writ a co This District Court mailed my Order via ordinary mail on December 5th, 2019. Because of. the "mailbox rule": my fourteen days to file a Notice of Appeal did not’ start until December 6th, 2019. To start my Notice of Appeal clock while my order is still being processed by the Postal Service seriously under. mines my “due process rights” that are afforded to my by the Sth: Amendment. Time to file a Notice of Appeal is almost expired by the time I receive the Order. : _ Under Rule 3 of the FRAP the District Court had the discretion to treat . my letter as the “functional equivalent” of a Notice of Appeal. ‘Also, because Rule 4 (b) is not jurisdictional it gives Courts discretion to waive filing deadlines, for defendants. It is the government's position that under. FRAP Rule 4(b) that once they raise untimeliness .my: appeal: should automatically’ be dismissed. US v. Gaytan-Garza, , 652 F.. 3d 680,681 6th Cir. 2011. This: may be the ease for a seasoned attorney,..but not for a Pro Se litigant acting. in good faith. For a mo Pro Se: litigant all documents and pleadings should. be-construed liberally as to do substantial justice. In:Gaytan-Garza the defendant attempted to file a Notice of Appeal “four years" later, and this is not. the case here.. The District Court liberally construed my letter as a Notice of Appeal. FRCP Rule 8(f) and Estelle, 429 US at 106, 97 S. Ct. 285 50 LED 2d 251. So, . 2 ; . When a Pro Se defendant filed a notice of appeal after the fourteen-day deadline of Rule 4(b), but before the additional thirty-day period for requesting extentions as expired, the district court should treat the notice as a request for extention of the filing deadline. U.S. V. Montoya, 335 F. 3d 73, 76 (2nd Cir. 2003). As a Pro Se litigant this gives me a minimum of fourty-five . days from when I first received the order to file an appeal. I placed my letter in the prison mailbox on January 24th, 2020 and it was not post marked until January 30th, 2020. From there it took “another” seven days just for the Court to receive my letter. It took a total of "thirteen" days for the Court to receive my letter. I believe that the District Court is well aware of the hurdles that ProSe litigants encounter from day to day and that is why my letter was treated as a Notice of Appeal. My documents should be held to the standard of a Pro Se litigant and not that of a "seasoned