No. 21-7717

Kacy Fonteze Williams v. Mississippi

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-04-27
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-claim discretion discretionary-review district-court federal-review firearm-charge habeas habeas-corpus right-to-be-heard standard-of-review state-court
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2022-06-16
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the District Court failed to properly utilize its discretion on the petitioner's habeas where the court dismissed the firearm charge issue rendering a right to be heard violation

Question Presented (from Petition)

No question identified. : | QUESTIONS PREGWTED For (UWEW i Whebher Tre District Couct Farlec! To Pope Velree Its Dsevebion On “The el Ppp t Aaboets A Whether The Fry Cvoutt Ereeed Or Abuseel Hs Deserefion On too Gt tardhd The Reeawns Grviction Clann 4 Whelher Peli ion er lAlas Dentecl Right Be Heal Or Ateess To Courk y. TABLE _OF fo TENTS a Table of. ra) 1 tk i i aa Oe ee i Stalerrett of fads st~—<—s~—~*YY “Jurisol} OP ~ oe lly eee ee ee te Releart Stans | Jevolveo! ee iN Ofher Statutes, eke. ee AN duedtons ft werted hy Feiew ee V eQA0NS INhy Wet Should Tse 1-23 | | | __ SHATEMAATT OF (ASE Peli tioneKa Willa bor Heol a SdISd peli Uh pe chided caf a Ene 1S90€ in park lar, fesse Yh O Area, Tre kdiied cout dfreced ath He of he hog dn ie, : ing Ublizing i} conresahhi [rove Ive % ENGL Gh thee Ke i « exch For each fue al Jaw reguremenk “re SHE Grew recrev fe chim re) Lhd thatch anes glacrel AC Clan Ke 2 11S ah, jreserdeol fle pirery the necessand) Cour}, —STEIEM ENT OF FACTS “Tre Claims should haye awacleal reui at a Bcd rok ren ie elo ddbere actordivy to“ USAW. Baley” a , Williams v. Taylol”, She chsh ct count and Kr Cie uty devia Arp, We sole of larg pea in oter to esta bish Possession, of eClum ry Here must be | come, Hiychennce Peng a cual’ ov consfrucht vee Sia, which newer LL eae SIT suas i INTERESTED PAICTIES | Th one] St neol Counsel of recorel Certifies [hat We fol lowing | ‘clea! SONS have joterest In He of tome of this Cas, [rete [Pegentatens ae mace In orchy usnces of pars ma /u possible di gualih cakiens ov veka) , /. ka ll Mam s ~ jah kon Z. Duliay ne (licharclsons Did. Hy | 3 Stik of Mississipor DuUdtsDICTION | “This Coudd's sorisdiction TS y voked FF USCS 1254 (1), 2h 4 ee eee ip rehearing Laas pot lee 2 pehha, r borg rcbecas Las cervecd or, He dake of fygl 30, 220° @ pekbion for CoA LMS daicel orn YL, LOZLR. 1 _AELENWT STATUTES (NVOLVED _ | LY USCS 2254 (A) . FE USCS ASOALOS) OTHE STATUTES, ETC MLA g 97-87-S5 uceceP , 4,08 Iv. Cenoond ont _] WHETHER THE DISTRICT CourT FAILED PoPERLY DTILUZE ITS DISCRETION OM THE PETITIONERS HABEAS WHERE THE Covie7DISMISSED THE FIREARM CHRRGE 1SSUE RENDEMUNUG A WCHT T BE HEKED ViolLATION “The distn'ed Cork, as the habeas Covet has a sel starclavel of roles 1 mud banvew avel y re In ak ey or eee eres CH aheas Chtinry reer ( See kles donmnid /halveas Corpus Va CCV / \ Und these ruts , the did ct court is veteoh with authori ty act reypony bib k/ 4 Seren 2e pabegs Mains fo obternsjine sthierency, PTGS y turf Peper rerecly, The rule ov starclarc Haat comes into Play here , 1S whith cb SCUSES Hae reuse Lay Qa iste ft court isto examine all ogee claims, especially sulG Cen 0 eu cher ; See Williams | \ lay lov zhy9 US. Sn (aed), | I. ae fa) baint on Hh 0 ot a Pare Go nook de grad rebel to Q stale pri Ssoner Luith respeet bo Claims adjuchi'ca On the ments va) stale cout, Stake Court ' Fuh Canon er bhirl {) ba eptecy fe LM dbco! echrd Wy s(A) involy rm un r Or) Henk, ET ei has AW) by hoy s lor? : See lad Hl, QUr5 \4 Layl SLLUIS! 5L2( Jao), | Ta light £ He rcliral saciole off thology pinsyuchin Fg curls rad ive 1; 05S) Qa hal word’ Q (Golde Ths Caf moh. Give incdeperder sukiny ancl means fo Lot “Contrary ho” nd “Unt ‘orabote gohtakion Clauses, oft £ Aasy, la and “The i Clavie cout be inypreteel to vr ives Co SION) a fab tated ited : a) j U a la) S ot lear at sinter ebe feels. (22), . 2 Uercler dee “unreasonabl l'cation”’ a ause, je Sate Court cklhes the corer, Govern prinaple tothe facts perivaws rade 4 Ly Lr nese factors Are mer either ore or grort habeas relief. eC Wri v. We , | 5 IF US, BOI A000) , ar dj sie ot Court, om habeas VOMELS | 6 NONLS QOSSES Sion of Brea 5 Cha doe Wd My rs not SuMcend cong ki onally Proven Phot he ppssessed A Aréarrm Purscart fo MLA § F-BR-S. by subslank: fing all necessary essenkia/ ehorrerls of 4b charge. The didri ct court, cleciclin renew ‘y of! lhe Capen ait oll ske of. del vn ‘ ‘5 Labhl9s. peor over ome ~ prtlak._towte's oedsiin. kukhty mort, Wn Lae L

Docket Entries

2022-06-21
Petition DENIED.
2022-06-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/16/2022.
2022-05-26
Waiver of right of respondent Mississippi to respond filed.
2022-04-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 27, 2022)

Attorneys

Kacy Fonteze Williams
Kacy Fonteze Williams — Petitioner
Kacy Fonteze Williams — Petitioner
Mississippi
Kacy Fonteze Williams — Respondent
Kacy Fonteze Williams — Respondent