No. 23-5405

David Petersen v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2023-08-22
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: abuse-of-discretion constitutional-rights court-errors due-process fourteenth-amendment integrity-of-judicial-process judicial-discretion judicial-process material-errors securities-fraud
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2023-10-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is it a violation of due process when any court makes no effort to address or remedy material abuses of discretion and material errors on the record?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Question 1. _ Is it a violation of due process when any court, upon becoming formally aware of multiple material abuses of discretion and material errors on the record, makes no effort to address or remedy the errors? Question 2. How should the Supreme Court respond when it becomes known post-decision that all involved Courts, including the Supreme Court, relied on material errors on the record that were known by “officers of the court”? Question 3. | Should the Supreme Court be compelled to grant review and potentially reverse , a case where it is evident post-trial that the jury instruction requirement of a valid security, ; explicitly outlined in clear and proper jury instructions, was not satisfied in a securities fraud case? | Question 4. Is the Supreme Court compelled to grant certiorari and undertake a comprehensive review of a case when the lower court's reliance on a demonstrably faulty record, amounting to a clear abuse of discretion, not only undermines the integrity of the judicial process but also violates the Petitioner's constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to have their case and reasoning meticulously considered and fairly decided upon by the appellate court?" | ii.

Docket Entries

2023-10-10
Petition DENIED.
2023-09-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/6/2023.
2023-09-07
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-08-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 21, 2023)

Attorneys

David Petersen
David Petersen — Petitioner
David Petersen — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent