Whether the district court erred by denying the motions for severance?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10, a review is warranted as this case present an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by the Supreme Court (Rule 10(b). The Supreme Court should review the federal law granting Federal Judges discretion to sever cases when one codefendant opts to the status of pro se. I. Where the district court violates the rule announced in the 6" ; Amendment when the government court appointed attorney failed to raise the issue of forfeiture with the 11" Circuit Court of Appeals. Defendant is unable to address this issue due to the failure to raise the issue in the Appeals Court. Presently, there are no current remedy to correct such error. Mr. Brown suffered actual prejudice from the court appointed attorney failure to raise the issue with the appeals court. Mr. Brown was denied his constitutional right and seeks immediate remedy to raise the issue of forfeiture with the 11" Circuit Court of Appeals. Il. Where the district court violate the Order of Forfeiture for substitute Asset until all legal proceedings are concluded to included but not limited to form 2255. The process for ineffective counsel fails to allow the defendant to solely address forfeiture. The district court having knowledge that the government court appointed attorney failed to raise the issue and there is no other process offered to raise the issue of forfeiture. IJ. Where the district court violate the rule announced in Honeycutt v. , 2 ‘ » United States when they held them jointly and severally liable for the forfeiture judgment overlooking established standards of the law in Honeycutt v. United States 6/5/2017U.S. Supreme Court. IV. Where the district court violate the rule announced in the 5 Amendment when they failed to allow co-defendant (Katrina Brown) have a hearing as requested after giving a sworn statement (3) three times. Katrina Brown being unavailable during trial due to representing herself, pro se status stated she would testify that Reginald Brown was without knowledge of any criminal activities. V. Where the district court violate the rule announced in the 6" Amendment when the government assigned court appointed attorney using terms like “shell companies”, “tearful confessions”, “and “false invoices” set a bad atmosphere for his case. From the onset, Mr. Brown maintains his innocence. However, the government court appointed attorney proceeded with his trial strategy of conceding guilt which violated Mr. Brown’s Sixth Amendment : VI. Where the district court violate the rule announced in the 6 Amendment when the government assigned court attorney failed to object to false numbers at a reasonable time. The government assigned court appointed attorney failed to investigate the funds disbursements to show business related expenses opposed to personal expenses. There was no presentation to gather receipts and contract with entertainers and presented them to the jury 3 & » so that they could see how funds were spent. The government court appointed attorney proceeded with his trial strategy of conceding guilt which violated Mr. Brown’s Sixth Amendment. VII. Where the district court violate the rule announced in the 6“ Amendment when the government assigned court attorney failed to utilize the court financed accountant Timothy H. Myers, CPA as order by Judge James R. Klindt. Attempting to challenge a government’s case in a case that involves restitution and, or forfeiture without obtaining your own forensic accountant was not in Mr. Brown’s interest. The government court appointed attorney proceeded with his trial strategy of conceding guilt which violated Mr. Brown’s Sixth Amendment. VIII. Where the district court violated the rule announced in the 5‘* Amendment when the government took Mr. Brown property (3063 Ray Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32209) for forfeiture substitute. The district court was informed that the government court appointed attorney failed to raise