Petition for Rehearing — Samuel David Silva-Ramirez, Petitioner v. Hospital Espanol Auxilio Mutuo de Puerto Rico, Inc., et al.

NO. 18-186

In the Supreme Court of the United States

SAMUEL DAVID SILVA-RAMIREZ,

ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

–V–

HOSPITAL ESPANOL AUXILIO MUTUO

DE PUERTO RICO, INC. ET AL.,

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

PETITION FOR REHEARING

RAFAEL E. SILVA ALMEYDA

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

SILVA ALMEYDA LAW OFFICES

P.O. BOX 363873

SAN JUAN, PR 00936-3873

(787) 274-1147

SILVA.ALMEYDA.LAW@GMAIL.COM

OCTOBER 26, 2018

SUPREME COURT PRESS

♦ (888) 958-5705

♦ BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii

PETITION FOR REHEARING .................................. 1

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....... 13

CONCLUSION.......................................................... 14

RULE 44 CERTIFICATE ......................................... 15

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACOG Statement on Research About Family

Planning Services (February 23, 2016) ............. 1a

Committee Opinion (January, 2015)........................ 4a

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955,

167 L.Ed.2d 9292 (2007) ..................................... 9

Califano v. Torres,

435 U.S. 1 (1978) ................................................... 2

Carey v. Population Services International,

431 U.S. 678 (1977) .............................................. 2

Good News Club v. Milford Central School,

533 U.S. 98 (2001) .............................................. 13

Griswold v. Connecticut,

381 U.S. 478 (1965) ............................................. 2

Harris v. Rosario,

446 U.S. 651 (1980) .............................................. 2

Junius Constr. Co., v. Cohen,

257 N.Y. 393, 178 N.E. 672 (1931).................... 13

Mikes v. Strauss,

274 F.3d 687 (2nd Cir. 2001) ............................ 11

Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset,

640 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) .................................... 9

Poe v. Ullman,

367 U.S. 497 (1961) ............................................... 2

Rosenberg v. Rector and Visitors of

the University of Virginia,

515 U.S. 819 (1995) ........................................... 13

Skinner v. Oklahoma,

316 U.S. 535 (1942) .............................................. 2

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Thompson v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.,

125 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 1997) ............................. 11

U.S. Ex rel v. Unadilla Health Care Center,

Inc., 787 F.Supp.2d 1329 (2011) ....................... 10

U.S. Ex relator Hutchenson v. Blackstone

Medical, Inc., 647 F.3d 377

(1st Cir. 2011) .................................................. 8, 9

U.S.A. v. Jose Luis Vaello-Madero,

Case 17-2133 (2018) .............................................. 1

U.S.A. v. Lahey Clinic Hosp. Inc.,

399 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) cert denied,

546 U.S. 815 (2005) ............................................. 2

Universal Health Services Inc. v. U.S.A.,

136 S.Ct. 587 (1989) ............................................. 8

Watkins v. Mercy Medical Hospital,

520 F.2d 894 (9th Cir 1975)................................... 6

Wilmar v. Vincent,

454 U.S. 263 (1981).......................................... 13

STATUTES

31 U.S.C. § 3729(1)(A) ................................................ 11

31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A) ........................................ 7, 11

31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B) ............................................ 11

31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(C) .......................................... 11

31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G) .......................................... 11

42 U.S.C. § 1320(a)(2) ................................................. 7

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(a)(3) .......................................... 7

42 U.S.C. § 300(a)(7) ................................................... 10

42 U.S.C. § 300–6 ........................................................ 9

42 U.S.C. § 708 ........................................................... 7

The Civil Rights Act of 1964....................................... 7

JUDICIAL RULES

Rules of Evidence;

Rule 901, Article IX, Authentication or

Identifying Evidence § 901(b)(7)(B) ....................... 6

Sup. Ct. R. 44 .............................................................. 1

REGULATIONS

24 C.F.R. § 242.54 ....................................................... 9

42 C.F.R. § 53.112 ................................................ 9, 10

45 C.F.R. § 80.3 ........................................................... 7

45 C.F.R. § 87.1(e) ..................................................... 11

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

OTHER AUTHORITIES

ACOG Committee Opinion #695, April 2017 ............... 1

American College of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists, Access to Contraception.,

Committee Opinion No. 615. OBSTET

GYNECOL. 2015 .................................................... 5

American College of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists, Access to Postpartum

Sterilization, Committee Opinion No. 530,

OBSTET GYNECOL. 2012......................................... 5

American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology,

ACOG TECHNICAL BULLETIN, Number 530,

July 2012 (Reaffirmed 2016) ................................. 3

Dehlendorf C, Rodriguez MI, Levy K, Borrero

S, Steinauer J., Disparties in Family

Planning, AM J OBSTET GYNECOL 2010 ............... 5

Louis Henkin,

Privacy and Autonomy,

74 COLUM. L. REV. 1410 (1974).......................... 14

Luna Z, Luker K. Reproductive Justice,

ANN REV LAW SOC SCI 2013 .................................. 1

Peterson HB, Xia Z, Hughes J.M. Wilcox L.S.

Tylor LR, Trusell J., The Risk of Pregnancy

After Tubal Sterilization; Findings from the

U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization

(CREST Study), AM J OBSTETRICS

GYNECOLOGY 1996................................................. 4

1

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 44, petitioner

respectfully petitions this Court for rehearing of its

October 1, 2018 order dismissing the writ of certiorari

in this case.

“Reproductive rights” are something broader

than access to contraception and abortion alone; that

is, a reproductive justice framework, as defined by

advocates who first originated the term, recognizes

that women’s reproductive rights include the right to

have children, not to have children, and to parent in

safe and humane conditions”. Luna Z, Luker K.

Reproductive Justice, ANN REV LAW SOC SCI 2013;

9:327–52. ACOG Committee Opinion #695, April 2017.

In Puerto Rico HEAM (“Hospital Español de

Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficencia Inc.”) and owners; take

the USA Health funds thru Federal Guarantee Loans

and “Medicare and Medicaid” [M/M], and grants a

second-rate healthcare when they discriminate denying the universal right to health and family planning.

U.S. citizens, by law disposition; have the right not to

be discriminated in any way and receive the best

medical care. When contracting; HEAM has clauses

requiring to not discriminate against American citizens

in Family Planning.

In U.S.A. v. Jose Luis Vaello-Madero (Defendant)

Case 17-2133 when SSI (Supplements Security Income),

when defendant was ineligible when, he moved to

Puerto Rico, and U.S.A. sued for the restitution of

monies wrongfully paid from the public fisc. U.S.A. v.

2

Lahey Clinic Hosp. Inc., 399 F.3d 1, 9, 12 (1st Cir. 2005)

cert denied, 546 U.S. 815 (2005).

The U.S.A. legal capacity to discriminate against

residents of P.R. in healthcare and other federal programs, including SSI, stems from a brief per curiam

Supreme Court opinion. See Califano v. Torres, 435

U.S (1978). This case and its sequel, Harris v. Rosario,

permit Congress to discriminate in extending these

benefits to Puerto Rico “so long as there is a rational

basis for its action” Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651

(1980).

Very differently; sterilization Protocol of HEAM

violates the “right of privacy”, invasion to the right to

engage in highly personal activities, freedom of choice

in marital, sexual and reproductive matters. This

right of privacy is constitutionally protected, can be

traced to Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).

See also Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961). Focus in

the right of Privacy and marital “privacy”. Griswold v.

Connecticut, 381 U.S. 478 (1965). Carey v. Population

Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977).

Parents have a basic human right to determine

freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their

children,” the Tehran Proclamation by the International Conference on Human Rights at Teheran on 13

May 1968.

Taking away women’s access to information on

family planning is an attack on their access to healthcare, and the right to make informed autonomous

decisions about their lives and their bodies,”

More than 200 million women still lack safe and

effective family planning methods largely due to the

3

lack of information or services, we can only expect to

see higher rates of unintended pregnancies, unsafe

abortions, and infant mortality in the U.S.A. (Reh.App.

8a, 9a).1

When women are able to decide when to have children and space out their pregnancies, their children are

less likely to be born prematurely or have low birth

weights. (Reh.App.8a)

A study found that U.S. babies are three times

more likely to die compared to 19 countries in the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development largely due to high poverty rates and a weak

social safety net.

“ABSTRACT: Postpartum tubal sterilization is

one of the safest and most effective methods

of contraception. Women who desire this type

of sterilization typically undergo thorough

counseling and informed consent during prenatal care and reiterate their desire for postpartum sterilization at the time of their hospital admission. Not all women who desire

postpartum sterilization actually undergo the

surgical procedure, and women with unfulfilled requests for postpartum sterilization

have a high rate of repeat pregnancy (approaching 50%) within the following year.”

American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ACOG

TECHNICAL BULLETIN, Number 530, July 2012 (Reaffirmed 2016) Committee of Health Care for Underserved

1 “Reh.App.” refers to rehearing appendix. “Pet.App.” refers to

Petition Appendix.

4

Women, Access to Postpartum Sterilization, 1st Paragraph.

Sterilization remained the most common method,

used by 47.3% of married couples. Data from the

CREST Study indicate that postpartum partial salpingectomy (Partial removal of fallopian tubes) with lower

rates failure than interval, (when patient is not pregnant), when done by laparoscopy. Peterson HB, Xia Z,

Hughes J.M. Wilcox L.S. Tylor LR, Trusell J., The

Risk of Pregnancy After Tubal Sterilization; Findings

from the U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization

(CREST Study), AM J OBSTETRICS GYNECOLOGY 1996;

174: 1161-8; discussion 1168-70 (Level II-3 [Pub Med]

[Full text]).

Many sterilization procedures are planned immediately postpartum, which is an advantageous time

because the woman is not pregnant, is within a medical

facility, and often has insurance coverage. However,

many women do not obtain their planned postpartum

sterilization because of limited operating room availability, lack of motivation or coordination on the part

of the health care team (obstetricians, nurses, and

anesthesiologists), perceived increased risk because

of the postpartum state, or misplaced or incomplete

sterilization consent forms. In one study, almost 50%

of women who did not receive a requested postpartum

sterilization were pregnant again within 1 year. Thurman AR, Janecek T. One-Year Follow-Up of Women

with Unfulfilled Postpartum Sterilization Requests.

OBSTET GYNECOL. 2010; 116:1071-7. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] Federal regulations require a specific sterilization consent form to be signed 30 days

before sterilization for women enrolled in Medicaid or

5

covered by other government insurance. Access to Postpartum Sterilization, Committee Opinion No. 530,

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

OBSTET GYNECOL. 2012; 120:212-5. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology]

The unintended pregnancy rate for poor women is

more than five times the rate for women in the highest

income bracket. (5 Finer LB, Zolna MR. Unintended

Pregnancy in the United States: Incidence and Disparities, 2006. CONTRACEPTION 2011; 84:478-85. [PubMed] [Full Text]),

Additionally, low-income women face health system barriers to contraceptive access because they are

more likely to be uninsured, a major risk factor for

nonuse of prescription contraceptives. Dehlendorf C,

Rodriguez MI, Levy K, Borrero S, Steinauer J. Disparities in Family Planning, AM J OBSTET GYNECOL

2010; 202:214-20. [PubMed] [Full Text] Copyright January 2015 by the American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists, 409 12th Street, SW, PO Box 96920,

Washington, DC 20090-6920. All rights reserved. ISSN

1074-861X. Access to Contraception. Committee Opinion No. 615. American College of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists. OBSTET GYNECOL. 2015;125:250-5. (Reh.

App.17a).

Hospital Español de Auxilio Mutuo (HEAM) private corporation organized under the laws of Puerto

Rico, (“P.R”.) on April 29, 1992; is non-profit hospital,

not affiliated to Church and no religious purpose, and

owned by Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo (SEAM).

HEAM has a community of Catholic Sisters who

give voluntary work, and no decisions inherent in the

operation of HEAM.

6

They have a secret religious protocol of sterilization, that advances discrimination since June 20, 1996,

outside of the bylaws or any document that is presented before the Federal Regulation Entities. (Pet.App.

39a).

Bylaws of HEAM 2008 allows sterilization.

This protocol, authorizes nuns, final decision; if

patients are going to be sterilized or not, despite

patient's will in violation of their privacy right.

This written secret protocol also required a

letter of approval from a priest This protocol is only

given to the Staff doctors members of the Obstetrics

and Gynecology Department.

In order to HEAM not discriminate with a religious

protocol it needs an affiliation with the Catholic

Church and the religious affiliation be stated within

the bylaws of the Medical Staff of HEAM. See Watkins

v. Mercy Medical Hospital, 520 F.2d 894 11 Empl. Prac.

Dec. P. 10, 671. HEAM is not affiliated to the Catholic

Church.

Dr. Samuel D. Silva-Ramirez “relator” (Dr. Silva)

gynecologist, is an American citizen.

HEAM attested in a certification to the Department of Health and Human Services (D.H.H.S.) through

its division of Survey and Certification, that it is

aware of, and abides by all applicable statutes, regulations and program instructions when signing the

Provider’s Agreement. (Pet.App.19a-30a) according to

the Rules of Evidence; Rule 901, Article IX, Authentication or Identifying Evidence § 901(b)(7)(B); “a purported

public record or statement is from the office where

items of this kind are kept.” This Honorable Supreme

7

Court can take knowledge. (Pet.App.26a-30a, example

of signed parts of original of the year 2014 of PA.)

The False Statement arises out of the False Claims

Act. and the Violation are fraudulent. Certification of

compliance and False Fraudulent Certification to the

(DHHS) and Medicare/Medicaid (M/M) and others.

HEAM fail to disclose and illegal discriminatory

written protocol for sterilization that voids their contract and the CMS 855-A (Providers Agreement) and

CMS 2552-10 (Hospital Cost Report.).

M/M forms in the Certification Statement. 42 U.S.

Code § 708-Nondiscrimination provisions, and the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related nondiscrimination statutes to ensure nondiscrimination in all

programs and activities of a recipient, whether those

programs and activities are federally funded or not,

and 45 C.F.R. § 80.3.

HEAM are in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320(a)(2)

and 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(a)(3) when it is used form

CMS-2552-10, and CMS-855A. (Certification). All these

previous violations to 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(a)(3) were

material fact or condition of payment to M/M under

the Hospital Cost Reports and the Providers Agreement.

31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A), imposes liability on those

presenting “false or fraudulent claims”, does not limit

claims to misrepresentation about express condition

of payment. Nothing in the text supports such a

restriction. And under the Act’s materiality requirement, statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements are not automatically material, even if they are

labeled conditions of payment. Nor is the restriction

8

supported by the Act’s scienter requirement. A defendant can have “actual knowledge” that a condition is

material even if the Government does not expressly

call it a condition of payment. What matters is not

the label that the Government attaches to a requirement, but whether the defendant knowingly violated

a requirement that the defendant’s know is material

to the Government’ s payment decision. Universal

Health’s policy arguments are unavailing, and are

amply addressed through strict enforcement of the

False Claims Act (FCA’s) stringent materiality and

scienter provisions, Universal Health Services Inc. v.

U.S.A., 136 S.Ct. 1989, Supreme Court of the U.S. at

2201-2003.

U.S. Ex relator Hutchenson v. Blackstone Medical,

Inc., 647 F.3d 377 (1st Cir. 2011) states:

“as the Supreme Court has held, in enacting

the FCA ‘Congress wrote expansively, meaning to reach all types of fraud, without qualification, that might result in financial loss

to the Government.’”

U.S.A. Ex rel Hutchenson v. Blackstone Medical

Inc., (supra) at pages 393 and 394 expresses:

“The Provider Agreement, drafted by CMS

requires that hospitals and physicians acknowledge that they understand that the payment of a claim by Medicare is conditioned

upon the claim and the underlying transaction

complying with Medicare’s laws regulations

and program instructions.”

It also requires that the Hospital representative sign

a statement certifying that he or she is “familiar with

9

the laws and regulations regarding the provisions of

health care services and that the services identified

in this Cost Report were provided in compliance with

such laws and regulations.

U.S.A. Ex rel Hutchenson v. Blackstone Medical

Inc., (supra) at 394 and 395 expresses:

“In Loughren, this court held that a False

statement is material if has “a natural tendency to influence, or [i]s capable of influencing, the decision making body to which it

was addressed.”

“We cannot say, as a matter of law, the

alleged misrepresentations in the hospital

and physician claims were not capable of

influencing’s decision to pay the claims. See

Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d

1, 16-17 (1st Circuit 2011) (citing Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 127 S.Ct.

1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 9292 (2007)).

HEAM acquired two types of hospital modernization loans:

A.

Loan from the Hospital Survey and Construction Act (Hill-Burton), in the years 1960, id.

number 720025.; 42 C.F.R. § 53.112, U.S. v.

Blackstone Medical, Inc., 647 F.3d 377 (2011);

24 C.F.R. § 242.54; 42 U.S.C. § 300–6; U.S.

v. Anderson, 605 F.3d 404 (2010);

B.

HEAM closed a loan from HUD in May 1983

financed or guaranteed by the U.S.A. Department of Housing of Urban Development

(HUD). Amount $3,175,000.00. The number

was 056-13005 and was for Modernization

10

and construction of the Hospital (HEAM). It

had outstanding balance years 1992, 1993 and

1994 of $2,500,000.00. This is a violation of

the Church amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 300(a)(7).

An assurance is requested under 42 C.F.R. § 53.

112, U.S. Ex rel v. Unadilla Health Care Center, Inc.,

2010 WL 146877, page 5.

Under 42 C.F.R § 53.112 is a condition of payment

exists to not discriminate by Creed, when statute requires an assurance . . .

In a letter from U.S. D.H.H.R. Dated July 21, 1997

addressed to Marilina Sierra, Financial Department

Director of Auxilio Mutuo Hospital, making reference

to Hill-Burton ID # 720025. Third paragraph, second

sentence says:

“However, please be advised your facility’s

Community Service obligation, as specified

in Subpart G of the regulations, remains in

in effect in perpetuity.” (This part speaks

about creed discrimination among others.)

(Hill-Burton Act). (Pet.App.37a-38a).

Defendants had actual knowledge of the information; acted with deliberate ignorance of the truth

or falsity of the information, and/or in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information based

on the facts stated in this document. Defendants

knowingly assisted in causing Medicare/Medicaid to

pay claims which were grounded in fraud. This states

a claim against HEAM.

As an example of the Ethics Committee proceedings in the request of sterilization post-partum; on

a written letter by Sor Claribel Camacho HEAM nun

11

(not a Doctor or nurse) she wrote, denying the permission and to get her cesarean at HEAM and sterilization at another hospital.

False Claims may take many forms, the most common been a claim for goods and services not provided,

or provided in violation of contract terms, specifications, statutes or regulations. Mikes v. Strauss, 274

F.3d 687, 697 (2nd Cir. 2001).

False Claims Action are allowed due to discriminating protocol of religious nature, under 31 U.S.C.

§ 3729(1)(A), 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B), 31 U.S.C. § 3729

(a)(1)(C) and 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G).

45 C.F.R. § 87.1(e) Discretionary Grants states:

“An organization that participates in programs funded by direct financial assistance

from the Department shall not in providing

services, discriminate against a program beneficiary or prospective program beneficiary on

the basis of religion . . . ”

When a government contract is tainted with a

violation of a statute or regulation, courts are generally

bound to strike down the illegal contract by declaring

it “Void AB INITIO.”

The False representation, statement or False Certification made to the D.H.H.S. was a material fact

because a condition of payment was within the Hospital

Cost Reports and Providers Agreement. Thompson v.

Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 125 F.3d 899, 902

(5th Cir. 1997).

Violations of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(C), 31 U.S.C.

§ 3729(a)(1)(A), and 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B), because

12

they conspired to make a violation, for knowingly

causing to present, a false or fraudulent claim for

payment or approval and for causing or using or used,

a false record or statement material to an obligation

to pay or transmit money or property to the government.

See for example this hypothetical situation:

In HEAM of Puerto Rico; Ms. X of 31 years,

a Christian non Catholic American citizen

who has 2 children and has just delivered

her third daughter on Holly Thursday (Holy

Week). If she have delivered on another

season; her sterilization approval will had

come without any pretext. The day of the

sterilization on Good Friday is not approved

by the Nun.

The Hospital is non-Catholic, doesn’t has affiliation to Church and this is not mentioned neither in

Medical bylaws or in any document presented to

Federal or State Agencies. The Hospital Modernized

with Federal Grants which required to sign an agreement for non-discrimination.

The Hospital doesn’t require this protocol to male

patients.

We have a clear conflict of Right of Privacy, the

lithurgical interest of the Administration and owners

to promote their religion, Autonomy issues, the Right

of patients to planning their family, and Gender

discrimination.

13

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

If this Court applies any test to deal with a state

or private/Church for religious establishment;; with

no doubt our petition will prevail Wilmar v. Vincent,

454 U.S. 263 (1981), Good News Club v. Milford

Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), Rosenberg v. Rector

and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S.

819 (1995).

The defendants, HEAM had knowledge, knew,

acted knowing or knowingly, it is formally alleged

that defendants had actual knowledge of the information, acted in deliberate ignorance of the truth or

falsity of the information or acted in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information, and

require no proof of specific intent to defraud.

HEAM collected from Medicare/Medicaid from

2002 to 2012 approximately $919,401,353.00. (Doc.

42-2, 3rd Amended Complaint, p.54, 87).

The FCA’s materiality requirement is demanding.

An undisclosed fact is material if, for instance,” [n]o

one can say with reason that the plaintiff would have

signed this contract if informed of the likelihood” of

the undisclosed fact.” Junius Constr. Co., v. Cohen,

257 N.Y. 393, 400, 178 N.E. 672, 674.

14

CONCLUSION

“Whether as substantive due process or as Privacy,

‘fundamentality’ needs elaboration, especially with

respect to the weight particular rights are to enjoy in

the balance against public good. Justices Stone and

Cardozo suggested that the freedom of speech, press

and religion require extraordinary judicial protection

against invasion even for the public good, because of

their place at the foundations of democracy and because

of the unreliability of the political process in regard

to them.”

Louis Henkin, Privacy and Autonomy, 74 COLUM.

L. REV. 1410, 1428-29 (1974).

Petitioner request the granting of this Reconsideration to Writ of Certiorari to the United States

First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Respectfully submitted,

RAFAEL E. SILVA ALMEYDA

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

SILVA ALMEYDA LAW OFFICES

P.O. BOX 363873

SAN JUAN, PR 00936-3873

(787) 274-1147

SILVA.ALMEYDA.LAW@GMAIL.COM

OCTOBER 26, 2018

15

RULE 44 CERTIFICATE

The undersigned counsel of record for Petitioners

certifies that, under penalty of perjury that:

1. This petition for rehearing is presented in

good faith and not for delay.

2. The grounds of this petition are limited to

intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling

effect or to other substantial grounds not previously

presented.

/S/ RAFAEL E. SILVA ALMEYDA

Executed on October 26, 2018