No. 25-6278
David Andrew Diehl v. United States
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: constitutional-argument ex-post-facto fifth-circuit peugh-v-united-states subject-matter-jurisdiction united-states-v-booker
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2026-01-16
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Did the fifth Circuit have subject matter jurisdiction on direct appeal to consider an ex post facto constitutional argument that was never raised.
Does the full ex post facto clause apply where the offense occurred prior to United States v. Booker in light of Peugh v. United States.
Did Diehl present facts showing fraud on the court per Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 60(d)(3).
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the Fifth Circuit have subject matter jurisdiction to consider an ex post facto constitutional argument not previously raised, and does the full ex post facto clause apply to offenses predating United States v. Booker in light of Peugh v. United States?
Docket Entries
2026-01-20
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Jackson, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the order barring this incarcerated petitioner from filing future in forma pauperis petitions in noncriminal matters. See Howell v. Circuit Court of Indiana, 607 U. S. ___ (2026) (Jackson, J., dissenting).
2026-01-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/16/2026.
2025-12-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
2025-12-11
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-10-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 5, 2026)
Attorneys
David A. Diehl
David A. Diehl — Petitioner
United States
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Respondent