Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Michael Jones, Petitioner v. United States

CZ

" Nor

,

7 ■t;

QJ)

ft

0

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

n '

<nn G USUAL

p

Michael Jones

PETITIONER

VS.

United State of America

filed

JUL 03 2021

S>Up{?EEMEFCOtfRTiNQK

RESPONDENT(S)

On Petition For Writ of Certiorari

To The United States Court of Appeals

For The Fifth Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Michael Jones, Pro Se

2433 Bedford Drive

New Orleans, LA 70131

(504)655-3074

Madscientistmj @aol. com

RECEIVED

AUG 3 1 2021

waaraaggp

i

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

Petitioners Michael Jones hereby adopts the Petitions for Writ of

Certiorari filed by Dr. Henry Evans and Dr. Shelton Barnes and the Questions Presented

therein, to wit:

Questions Presented by Dr. Evans

1.)

Are the Medicare rules, regulations, and policies controlling” in a criminal

prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1347; i.e. is evidence of compliance or non-compliance

with the rules, regulations and policies always relevant to a determination of fraud?

2.)

If the Medicare rules, regulations, and polices are not “controlling,” but are

“terms of art,” as the Fifth Circuit opined, must these rules, regulations, and policies

nevertheless guide the “reliable principles and methods” of any witness proffered as an

expert in eligibility for Medicare benefits?

Questions Presented by Dr. Barnes

3.)

Does the Panel Decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Circuit, rendered October 28, 2020 (979 F.3d 283 (5th Cir. 2020), WL 6304699,

rehearing denied January 4, 2021 (hereinafter Panel Decision), conflict with its own

authority, holding and reversal in U.S. v. Ganji, 880 F.3d 760 (5th Cir. 2018), which is

not substantially distinguishable from the present case, and with the same lack of criminal

intent and sufficiency of evidence?

4.)

Does the Panel Decision conflict with the holding and reversal in the co-defendant

and alleged co-conspirator appeal in United States v. Nora, 988 F.3d 823 (5th Cir. 2021),

ii

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED CONTINUED

WL 716628, No. 18-31078, rendered February 24, 2021, by a different Panel of the Fifth

Circuit?

5.)

Does the Panel Decision conflict with U.S. v. Nora, supra, and U.S. v. Ganji,

supra, both decisions from the Fifth Circuit?

6.)

Does the Panel Decision create a lack of uniformity with U.S. v. Nora, supra, and

U.S. v. Ganji, supra, and other cases, particularly regarding sufficiency of evidence for

the knowledge and intent requisite to sustain a conviction?

7)

Did the improper comments and conduct by the government prosecutor, during

the government’s rebuttal closing argument, as repeatedly found by the District Court and

Fifth Circuit Panel, constitute a violation of Petitioner’s rights to due process of law and a

fair trial; and, unconstitutionally and substantially impeach the integrity of the

proceedings, at that key and crucial time period, especially without the ability of the

victim, Petitioner, to defend himself from it?

8.)

Did the purported expert, Dr. Brobson Lutz’s unqualified, confusing, misleading

and uneducated testimony as an expert, particularly in the area of homebound status,

unconstitutionally and unreasonably confuse the jury and deprive Petitioners of due

process of law and a fair trial?

iii

LIST OF PARTIES

[ X] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[

] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all

parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as

follows:

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Petitioner, Michael Jones, was the defendant in the District Court proceedings and

appellant in the Court of Appeals proceedings. Respondent, United States of America,

was the plaintiff in the District Court proceedings and appellee in the Court of Appeals

proceedings. App. 1, 64, 66

RELATED PROCEEDINGS

United States v. Shelton Barnes, 979 F.3d 283 (5th Cir. 2020).

United States v. Nora, 988 F.3d 823 (5th Cir. 2021).

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

v

OPINIONS BELOW

1

JURISDICTION

1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

2

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

3

INDEX TO APPENDICES

United States Court ofAppeals for the Fifth Circuit, Opinion, October 28, 2020.... App. 1

United States Court ofAppeals for the Fifth Circuit, Judgment, October 28, 2020.

.................................................................................................................................. App. 64

United States District Court for the Eastern District ofLouisiana, Judgment, September

28, 2018.

/.

.....App. 64

United States Court ofAppeals for the Fifth Circuit, Order Denying Petition for

Rehearing, January 4, 2021................................................................................... App. 80

V

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Petitioner Michael Jones hereby adopts the Petitions for Writ of Certiorari

filed by Dr. Henry Evans and Dr. Shelton Barnes and the authorities cited therein. They

further cite the following

CASES

Page

United States v. Andrews, 22 F.3d 1328 (5th Cir. 1994).............

United States v. Bennett, 874 F.3d 236 (5th Cir. 2017)...............

United States v. Dorr, 636 F.2d 117 (5th Cir. Unit A, Feb. 1981)

25

.25

25

United States v. Ganji, et al., 880 F.3d 760 (5th Cir. 2018)

passim

United States v. Garza, 608 F.2d 659 (5th Cir. 1979)

26

United States v. Gracia, 522 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 2008)

26

United States v. Insaulgarat, 378 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2004)

.25

United States v. Mendoza, 522 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2008)

25

United States v. Morganfleld, 501 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 2007)

.25

United States v. Murrah, 888 F.2d 24 (5th Cir. 1989)

25

United States v. Nora, 988 F.3d 823 (5th Cir. 2021)

........................................................................................................... passim

United States v. Plasser American Corp., et ah, 57 F.Supp. 140 (E.D. PA,

1999)

32

United States v. Raney, 633 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 2011)

26

United States v. Smith, 814 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2016)

26, 27

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED Continued

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

U.S. Const, amend. V .

U.S. Const, amend. VI

5

5

STATUTES

18U.S.C. § 371 .....

18U.S.C. § 1347 ....

18U.S.C. § 1516 ....

18U.S.C. § 1516(a)

U.S.C. § 1254(1)....

2

2

................ 2,3,30

2, 6,30,31,32 28

1

RULES

Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 404(a)(1)....

Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 404(b)(1)....

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 29

22

27

3

1

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

The Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is

published at 979 F.3d283 (5th Cir. 2020), WL 6304699. The proceedings and record in

the District Court are filed in Case No. 15-cr-61, Section E, The Honorable Susie Morgan

presiding. On January 24, 2021, the Petition for Rehearing was denied. App. 80.

JURISDICTION

The Judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was entered on

October 28, 2020. This Court extended the time within which to file any Petition for a

Writ of Certiorari to 150 days from this date of rendering by the Court of Appeals. Co­

petitioner who has contested his case from inception seeks leave to file out of turn. The

jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Petitioner Michael Jones hereby adopts the Petitions for Writ of Certiorari filed by

Dr. Henry Evans and Dr. Shelton Barnes and their statement regarding the Constitutional

and Statutory Provisions Involved.

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The petitioner Michael Jones was among six African Americans who were

convicted of Medicare fraud in the Eastern District of Louisiana. At their trial each had

retained counsel and entered pleas of NOT guilty. They were convicted and sentenced by

Judge Susie Morgan. Morgan, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana.

Notice of Appeal was timely filed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, by

Michael Jones who was once again represented by retained counsel and separately, on

appeal to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit denied any relief to five of the six defendants

and a Petition for Rehearing was sought, but denied by the Fifth Circuit.

Because the Petitioner was sentenced to periods of confinement, which occurred

during the appellate process, there was confusion as to their ability to obtain appointed

counsel because his financial condition had deteriorated to such an extent that retained

counsel was no longer available. Accordingly, the Petitioner is filing a Motion for Leave

to have his Petition for Certiorari heard by the Supreme Court because he is merely

adopting the Questions Presented by his co-petitioners, primarily Dr. Evans and Dr.

Barnes, and suggested the issues presented by both Dr. Evans and Dr. Barnes would be

factually applicable to his situation if this Court grants a Writ of Certiorari.

If a writ is granted, the Petitioner will seek representation from the Federal Public

Defender panel to explain why their particular situations dictate that, if the Court has to

give relief to the co-petitioners, Dr. Barnes and Dr. Evans -.whose petitions are before

the Court, then similar relief should be granted to him. It would be a real inequity to have

the relief granted to those petitioners presently before the Court, and not give similar

3

relief, if factual applicable to the co-petitioners. Accordingly, the co-petitioner asks for

leave to file and adopt the Petitions for Writ of Certiorari by co-petitioners in the case.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Dr. Michael Jones was one of the four physicians who were indicted and

convicted in connection with the instant Medicare fraud charges. The government's

theory of the case relied extensively on experts (Dr. Lutz) whose qualifications and

testimony are at the center of the co-petitioners Dr. Evans and Dr. Barnes Petition for

Writ of Certiorari. The testimony of that expert likewise, had an effect on Dr. Jones, and

thus to the extent that relief is granted to the other doctors, Michael Jones should have the

benefit of any relief. He adopts the position set forth by his co-petitioners Dr. Evans and

Dr. Barnes’ pleadings.

Finally, the petitioner cites the outlandish argument by the U.S. Attorney during

closing argument in which prosecutor left the podium and, basically, attacked the defense

table with her argument, which is the subject matter of issues raised by Dr. Barnes and

Dr. Evans. The adverse effect of this closing argument affected all the defendants in the

case, not just the doctors. Accordingly, co-Petitioner Michael Jones seeks to adopt the

questions presented by co-petitioners and for the ability to, if writs are granted, to explain

in more detail the application of these issues to their particular factual situation.

4

No Prejudice to the Government

If Writs are granted, the government would have to address the issues presented

by the co-petitioners, there would be no prejudice to the government in addressing the

similar situations with regard to this co-petitioner. Accordingly, with no prejudice to the

Government, and the possibility of an inequitable result, co-Petitioner seeks Leave of

Court to have the Court consider his Petition, adopting the Questions Presented by co­

petitioners, Dr. Barnes and Dr. Evans.

Conclusion

There is no prejudice to the government in allowing co-petitioner who has, for

three years contested his conviction and now seeks to join the co-petitioners and raising

certain questions before the Court. Co-petitioner prays that leave will be granted to adopt

the Petitioners set forth by the other co-petitioners process.

Respectfully sumnmed,

A; cA* j a.

Date:

%