No. 25-528

David Paitsel v. United States

Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2025-10-31
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (1)Response Waived
Tags: bribery circuit-court due-process judicial-precedent official-act prosecutorial-standards
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2025-12-12
Question Presented (from Petition)

In McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016), this Court set very clear prosecutorial and judicial standards in criminal proceedings involving bribery associated with an official act. The D.C. Circuit, in its precedential ruling in United States v. Paitsel, 147 F.4th 1010 (CADC 2025), ignored those standards set forth in McDonnell by this Court and therefore created very ambiguous boundaries in this type of matter.

Did the D.C. Circuit err and therefore set forth a dangerous precedent?

Did the D.C. Circuit, through its errors, thereby create a judicial crisis and a dangerous situation within the D.C. Circuit, in addition to a negative influence upon other United States courts of appeals?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the D.C. Circuit err in its interpretation of McDonnell v. United States regarding prosecutorial standards in bribery cases?

Docket Entries

2025-12-15
Petition DENIED.
2025-12-01
Amicus brief of Huang Tiange submitted.
2025-12-01
Brief amicus curiae of Huang Tiange filed. (Distributed)
2025-11-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/12/2025.
2025-11-18
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-11-18
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-11-06
proof of service of David Paitsel submitted.
2025-11-06
[othertext] of David Paitsel submitted.
2025-11-06
(November 19, 2025)
2025-10-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 1, 2025)

Attorneys

David Paitsel
Louis Elias Lopez Jr.Law Office of Louis E. Lopez Jr., Petitioner
Huang Tiange
Corey John BiazzoBiazzo Law PLLC, Amicus
United States
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent