No. 25-5106

Milad Shaker v. United States

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2025-07-15
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-claims criminal-procedure due-process fraud-on-court jurisdictional-nullity post-conviction-relief
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2025-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether post-dismissal proceedings are void when no lawful conviction was entered and whether concealment of dismissal and suppression of exculpatory evidence constitute fraud on the court

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

1. Whether a court may impose sentencing or supervised release after dismissing a criminal case under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) , where no valid indictment or conviction remained. 2. Whether post-dismissal proceedings are void ab initio when no lawful judgment of conviction was ever entered following a case-ending dismissal. 3. Whether concealment of a dismissal order, misidentification using an incorrect Social Security Number, and suppression of exculpatory evidence constitute fraud on the court warranting relief under Rule 60 (b) (4) . 4. Whether appellate courts must provide reasoning.when denying review of structural jurisdictional and constitutional claims involving dismissal and fraud. 5. Whether a district court's denial of a stayed and never-reopened § 2255 petition violates jurisdictional limits and due process protections under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Article III. 1

Docket Entries

2025-10-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-09-05
Supplemental brief of petitioner Milad Shaker filed.
2025-07-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-07-22
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-07-22
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-06-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 14, 2025)

Attorneys

Milad Shaker
Milad Shaker — Petitioner
Milad Shaker — Petitioner
United States
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent