Whether the admission of prior bad act evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and reliance on extra-record statements violated the defendant's due process rights in a drug conspiracy prosecution

No question identified. : explanation on July 25, 2025 (Case No. 24-2020) Additionally, for this Honorable Court’s convenience a copy of the order is filed herewith.) Petitioner has now filed a pro se application with the Supreme Court for release under Rule 23, citing substantial legal questions and exceptional reasons justifying release. These include significant procedural and evidentiary errors during trial, including the improper admission of remote, prejudicial prior bad act evidence over objection, and the government’s reliance on statements outside the trial record. II. REASONS FOR GRANTING RELIEF This is an extraordinary case that meets both prongs of 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b): 1. **Substantial legal question:** Petitioner has raised compelling arguments showing that the trial court admitted improper and prejudicial evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), in violation of First Circuit precedent. The government also relied on facts outside the trial record in opposing release and conviction. These errors raise substantial issues that would, if resolved in Petitioner’s favor, likely lead to reversal or a new trial. 2. **Exceptional reasons warranting release:** Petitioner presents no flight risk and has already served a significant portion of the sentence. He also faces documented hardship while in custody, including a BOP classification concern and serious family circumstances (including a therapistsupported letter regarding the impact on his family). Continued detention would cause irreparable harm while his appeal remains unresolved. III. RELIEF REQUESTED Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court grant this emergency application for release pending the outcome of certiorari or appeal, or alternatively, refer the matter to the full Court for consideration. 2 A full motion with exhibits (Exhibits A through F) has been filed contemporaneously with this Application. Respectfully submitted, Robert Monteiro Petitioner, Pro Se /s] Robert Monteiro Federal Prison Camp Robert Monteiro 47453-509 P.O. BOX 200 Waymart, PA 18472 Dated: August 4th,2025 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES APPLICATION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL Robert Monteiro, Petitioner, v. United States of America, Respondent. To the Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the First Circuit: Petitioner, Robert Monteiro, respectfully applies for release pending appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3143(b), 3145(c), and Rule 23 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Petitioner seeks relief from the First Circuit’s denial of his motion for bail on July 31, 2025, in Case No. 24-2020, following his conviction in the District of Massachusetts. I. Procedural Background Mr. Monteiro was convicted after trial of a single count of drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846. He was sentenced to 69 months’ imprisonment. Postconviction, he moved for a new trial and judgment of acquittal under Rule 29, both of which were denied. He timely appealed both his conviction and those rulings. His motion for release pending appeal was also denied by the district court, and subsequently by the First Circuit. I. Grounds for Relief A. The Appeal Raises Substantial Questions of Law Likely to Result in Reversal or a New Trial Petitioner’s appeal is not brought for delay, but to resolve multiple substantial legal issues likely to result in reversal or a new trial: 1. Insufficiency of Evidence The evidence presented at trial, even taken in the light most favorable to the government, failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Monteiro knowingly and voluntarily joined the drug conspiracy. The government relied on speculation and circumstantial evidence, including unopened packages, unsupported interpretations of coded language, and weak testimony from a cooperating witness with no firsthand knowledge of key events. This issue is directly governed by United States v. Perez-Melendez, 599 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2010). Mor