No. 20-7689

Herve Wilmore, Jr. v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2021-04-08
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure constitutional-claim constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process federal-rules habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel misconstruction
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2021-05-13
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the court's misconstruction of the habeas corpus claim violate due process of law?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . The constitution requires fairness during the collateral proceedings on challenging the constitutionality of the criminal convictions(due process). ; However, the Magistrate Judge misconstrued the factual basis for the sole claim , presented in the petition to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence pursuant to title 28 UeSeCe 2255. AS a result, the court did not adjudicate the merits on whether counsel is constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise a . constructive amendment to the indictment. The District Court adopted the misconstructions in the Magistrate Judge's report, and the Eleventh Circuit : Court of Appeals Affirmed. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration ~ pursuant to Federal rules of civil procedure 60(b)(6). The District Court determined that "the petitioner points to several supposed errors in the Magistrate Judge's report". However, the court overlooked the record citations ‘which support the errors exist. This raises the following questions. 1). Does the court's misconstruction of the habeas corpus claim violate due : process of law? 2). Does the court's failure to adjudicate the merits of the habeas claim violate due process of law? : : 3). Does the court's misconstruction of the ineffective assistance of counsel ; claim require relief from the final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)? ; ; i , Herve Wilmore, Jr. ve United States Case NO. ‘ CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS . : As required by rule 29.6 1). United States of America, Appellee. : 2). Wifredo Ferrer, former United States attorney. 3). Jack A Fleishman, attorney for Petitioner on Direct Appeal for criminal : . chse. ; . 4). Sidney Z. Fleishman, attorney at trial level for the petitioner. 5). Solicitor General of the Department of Justice. 6). Benjamin G. Greenburg, United States attorney at Direct appeal level. 7). Delvin Jean-Baptiste, Co-Defendant at trial. 8). Neil Karadbil, AUSA, counsel for government at trial. 9). Robin S. Rosenbaum United States Appellate Court Judge for the 11th Circuit. 10).Gregory E. Tortella, AUSA, counsel for government at trial. : 11). Patrick A. White, Magistrate Judge, United States District Court. (retired) 12). Charles Wilson United States Appellate Court Judge for the 11th CIrcuit. : 13). Herve Wilmore, Jr., Petitioner/movant. ii ue

Docket Entries

2021-08-02
Rehearing DENIED.
2021-07-08
DISTRIBUTED.
2021-05-28
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2021-05-17
Petition DENIED.
2021-04-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.
2021-04-19
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-03-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 10, 2021)

Attorneys

Herve Wilmore
Herve Wilmore Jr. — Petitioner
Herve Wilmore Jr. — Petitioner
Herve Wilmore Jr. — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent