Whether a criminal defendant's constitutional right to self-representation and meaningful participation in his own appeal was violated by counsel's unilateral actions and refusal to consult or incorporate the defendant's input

No question identified. : revisions despite Petitioner’s repeated objections. At the time, Petitioner was incarcerated at MDC Brooklyn and was told that refusal to proceed would result in forfeiture of his appellate rights.Petitioner later submitted this charge to the Dl 4. Shifting Representations About Appointment and Authorization On April 14, 2025, Petitioner directly asked whether counsel had been formally appointed or authorized to represent him before the Supreme Court. Counsel responded that no such determination had yet been made. However, in the June 16 email (referenced above), counsel now asserts that “authorization was never an issue.” The inconsistency between the April 14 response and the June 16 in Exhibit B—raises concerns about whether this filing is being undertaken with proper procedural standing, and underscores the need for Petitioner to independently assess the situation and, if necessary, correct the record to ensure that any filing made in his name reflects his consent and legal position. 5. Prejudicial Timing and Inability to Substitute Counsel All of these issues—medical, procedural, and brought to Petitioner’s attention only days before the filing deadline, leaving no opportunity to seek substitute counsel or prepare his own petition. Without intervention by this Court, Petitioner will be unable to present the case himself or ensure that the record is accurate. Legal and Ethical Authority Petitioner’s right to participate in and direct his own criminal appeal is firmly established: * Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975): “The right to defend is personal. The defendant, and not his lawyer or the State, will bear the personal consequences of a conviction.” * McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018): It is the defendant’s prerogative to set the objective of his defense. * Martinez v. Court of Appeal, 528 U.S. 152 (2000): Even on appeal, control over the core objectives remains with the defendant. * Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970): Due process requires the meaningful opportunity to be heard. » ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4(a)(2)3): Requires counsel to consult the client on strategic matters and keep them reasonably informed. Relief Requested Petitioner respectfully requests a 60-day extension, until August 18, 2025, to: * Participate in the preparation of his own petition; * Seek alternate assistance if necessary; * Ensure a fair and accurate filing that reflects his position in this serious criminal matter. This request is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay. Petitioner expressly reserves the right to submit a supplemental or substitute petition if a filing is made in his name without his review or consent. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Willie E Dennis Willie Dennis 6858 Hidden Glade Place Sanford, Florida 31771 Email: woc2020@gmail.com Phone: (518) 414-7163 Dated: June 16, 2025 Exhibits * Exhibit A — Email from counsel refusing input (June 16, 2025) + Exhibit B — Email chain re: appointment uncertainty (April 14, 2025) Case: 23-6194, 03/21/2025, DktEntry: 52.1, Page 1 of 42 23-6194 United States v. Dennis In the Gnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit SEPTEMBER TERM 2024 No. 23-6194 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, Vv. WILLIE DENNIS, On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York A