Whether a state court's denial of a habeas petition based on procedural default and insufficient evidence claims comports with due process and federal habeas review standards under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

No question identified. : (2) Doving a recent Shake down of OUC hovsing unit Several Pieces of my _Mail_waS Confiscated/ misflaced and T hove +o now write +o +he Tied Crecuit Court of Meheals to cetain another CoPY of the lower Courts OFiniat\ denying Mota Foc En Banc hearing +o cottakeh wit, — 2 Mokion Lor Tine “Exkension as Fequived by Rulé 13.5 7 7 Pebiioner humbly ( equests that this | Honnfable Court = Geant PefiHoner Motion foc Extension of Time for +the aloe (eaSons, 3 Mud lt SCL Fayette. 50 Oveclook Drive Labelle Pa IS4501050 QoFQ Case: 24-3222 Document: 14-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2025 CLD-116 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT C.A. No. 24-3222 DAWAUN DUPREE CARSON, Appellant VS. SUPERINTENDENT FAYETTE SCI; ET AL. (W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 1:21-cv-00178) Present: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges Submitted is Appellant’s request for a certificate of appealability under 28 ULS.C. § 2253(c)(1) or for remand to the District Court in the above-captioned case. Respectfully, Clerk ORDER. Appellant’s request for a certificate of appealability is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Jurists of reason would agree, without debate, that Appellant’s habeas petition was properly denied by the District Court. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). In particular, Appellant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his conspiracy conviction, whether viewed as a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel or a claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, does not support habeas relief. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Additionally, the District Court correctly deferred to the Superior Court’s analysis under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), because it was not unreasonable to determine that Appellant did not establish prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). Appellant’s remaining Brady claim regarding the Commonwealth’s failure to disclose a witness’s location is procedurally defaulted. See Carpenter v. Vaughn, 296 F.3d 138, 146 (3d Cir. 2002); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735 n.1 (1991); 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9545(b)(1). As for Appellant’s remaining habeas claims, reasonable jurists would not debate that the claims are procedurally defaulted or without merit. See Norris v. Brooks, Case: 24-3222 Document: 14-1 Page:2 Date Filed: 04/18/2025 794 F.3d 401, 405 (3d Cir. 2015); Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 16 (2012); see also 28 US.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). In light of our denial of his request for a certificate of appealability, Appellant’s request to remand the case to the District Court is also denied. By the Court, s/ Cheryl Ann Krause Circuit Judge : x 4g é % sa, os Dated: April 18, 2025 A True Copy:°?¥35.119>" DWB/CLW/cce: Mr. Dawaun Dupree Carson x . Michael E. Burns, Esq. Ati Daag aoe & Patricia S. Dodszuweit, Clerk Certified Order Issued in Lieu of Mandate Case: 24-3222 Document:22 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 24-3222 DAWAUN DUPREE CARSON, Appellant v. SUPERINTENDENT FAYETTE SCI; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ERIE COUNTY (1:21-ev-00178) SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING Present: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, RESTREPO, BIBAS, PORTER, MATEY, PHIPPS, FREEMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, CHUNG, and SCIRICA|, Circuit Judges The petition for rehearing filed by Appetlant Dawaun Carson in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the RECEIVED» JAN -2 2026 | care gues 1 Judge Scirica’s vote is limited to panel rehearing only. Case: 24-3222 Document:22 Page:2 Date Filed: 08/22/2025 judges of the circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petiti