Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the court of appeals (Fourth Circuit) to remand this case to the district court without delay to hold an evidentiary or full hearing de novo, to legally call to notice this matter with the accused

QUESTION PRESENTED : (1) ; . On December 3, 2012, petitioner (age 25) was sentenced to 35 years in federal prison for : his alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. {} 1958(a), conspiracy to use interstate communication facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire, and 18 U.S.C. {} 1512(a)(1)(C), (3)(A) and (k), ; , conspiracy to murder a witness resulting in death. This decree of punishment is to be fol. lowed by five (5) years of supervised release. After commencement of petitioner’s incarceration, new evidence surfaced that proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, he was actually innocent of the charges against him in the murder-for-hire plot. This evidence further authenticates the guilty parties were a trio of licensed attorneys in the state of Maryland, who manifested a conspiracy to “impeach unjustly” this young African-American to prison for 35 years to protect one of their own, the one who actually arranged the murder-for-hire plot, that malefactor being attorney, Larry J. Feldman. His history, on record, shows he is a known drug addict cloaked in a lust for prostitution, : who had been suspended from practice, only to have his license reinstated after his participation in this conspiracy. . re second implausible “minister of justice” in this collusion against petitioner, was prosecutor, John Francis Purcell, who religiously did the bidding of the third and most deplorable of the lot, Rod J. Rosenstein. : nae this third “legal trickster” breathes as an tee of justice”. He orchestrated this conspiracy against petitioner when he was United States Attorney for the state of Maryland, one-in-the-same legal practitioner who later became Deputy Attorney General of 07/06/2022 Page 2 : the United States, an occurrence beyond comprehension. With evidence in hand; petitioner filed a motion with the district court reaffirming his innocence with affidavit of new evidence to substantiate same, naming the aforenamed trio as conspirators. Not only did the lower court deny the motion, void any detailed annotation, it completely re, fused to acknowledge the charges against this trio with facts judicially noted. Visibly, the -. court “covered-up” a crime, denying petitioner his rights as a victim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. {} 3771. Next, petitioner appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, with the identical result, no mention of the stated claim, with denial consisting of 15 words. Petitioner followed with a motion in reconsideration for an evidentiary hearing, and subsequently filed a renewed motion, both denied absent any mention of the crime he experienced. Notwithstanding, both courts obstructed justice as they “covered-up” a crime committed by three attorneys, with evidence in full support, that demanded a hearing be held so the ac. cused could defend themselves, as is their right as matter of law. ; Clearly, tis course of action violated petitioner’s rights as a crfme victim under 18 U.S.C. ; Code {} 3771, which stipulates any crime victim is afforded the rights described within the four corners of this statute. Noticeably, covering-up a crime by government officials is not included. ah The question presented is whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the court of appeals (Fourth Circuit) to remand this case to the district court without delay to hold an evidentiary or full hearing de novo, to legally call to notice this matter with the accused. 07/06/2022 7 7 @ Page 4