Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Neal Merrell Walker, Petitioner v. United States

No.

2

FILED

MAR 2 8 2024

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

TJF.AT. MF.RRF.T.T. WAT.KF.R

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

NEAT. MERRELL WALKER

(Your Name)

2680 HWY 301 SOUTH

(Address)

JESUP

GA. 31599

(City, State, Zip Code)

INCARCERATED

(Phone Number)

/

TT

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

(l).Does the fatal Variance from the indictment violate Mr.Walkers' Due process rights, v ;i*. i

when he is convicted of and imprisonment for "Controlled Substance" named in the

indictment,that the lab results proved not to be the substances Sold,or controlled

substance at the time of the investigation.

(2).Does Petitioner Walker being enhanced under Conspiracy for the Money Laundering

and also being charged separately for Money Laundering Constitute duplicitous

sentencing and violate Mr.Walker right to be sentenced to serve one punishment for

one particular crime as stated in the constitution of the United States,Does not

the Consecutive 5years sentence for money laundering and the 2 point enhancement

for money laundering violate duplicitous sentencing.

(3). Does not Mr.Walker serving an unjust sentence for controlled substances from

2018-2020 when in fact the substances sold were not controlled substances from

2018.The substance Eulylone became a controlled substance only 6 months before the

indictment and a-PiHP became a controlled substance 3 months after Mr.Walkers'

indictment and again the substances named in the indictment were controlled

substances,but the lab results ultimately proved that the drugs named in the

indictment were not the substances sold.Does not Mr.Walker being calculated under

"Controlled substance" offense for substances the lab results proved were not

"Controlled Substance" from 2018-0ct 2020 for the Eutylone and April 2021 for thea

-PiHp constitute an imperative fundamentally unjust sentence and incarceration

considering the indictment remanded unchanged.

(4).Did the government intentionally and deliberately violate Mr.Walker due process k., ( t.

when,during sentencing,when asked by the Judge what in fact the drugs were that

were tested,and the government read the information for A-PVP and MDMA instead

of the information for the actual substances sold which was a-PiHP not a

controlled substance offense at the time of the indictment and Eutylone which only

became a controlled substances 6 months before the indictment.Did not this fatal

error by the government mislead the judge and bias the outcome of Mr.walker

sentence violating his right to due process.

(5).Did the government violate due process when they calculated Mr.Walkers

substance sold as a "controlled substance" from 2018 when neither substance

"actually and factually" sold was a controlled substance before Oct,2020.And even

then only Eutylone became a controlled substance.Did the Misrepresentation of the

substance as a "controlled substance" from 2018 cause Mr.Walker base level

calculation to be prejudiced and incorrect.

(6). Was the conspiracy charged in this case "factually unlawful" when it relied

on the "controlled substance" clause to make it unlawful, yet the lab results

proved the substances "actually sold" not to be "controlled substances".

Conspiracy in and of itself is not a crime. Conspiring to sell sugar which is not

a controlled substance is not a crime, therefore considering Mr. Walker sold

substances that were not "controlled substances" would that not constittued his

conspiracy not criminal and not a crime.

(7). Considering Mr. Walker was not engaging in the sell of "controlled

substances" from 2018 as the government contended and the lab results proved, did

not Mr. Walker have the 4th Amendment right to possess and bear arms to protect

his home as he has reiterated time and time again throughout his case that his

possession of his .38 caliber firearm was intended to be used for?

QUESTIONS) PRESENTED

(8). According to the constitutionally correct law and process of law a person

must know and intentionally commit the crime for which they are charged with the

intent to commit it. The question to be raised here is considering neither

substance became a "controlled substance" until Oct 2020 was Mr. Walker forewarned

and forearmed with the knowledge he was selling a "controlled substance" (NO)

and in selling a "substance" with the intent to support his family constitute mens

rea considering he was unaware any substance he sold had became a "controlled

substance".

(9) .Did Walker violate any laws under the Constitution or any laws against Lthe i . c

United States.before being indicted and at the time of his Indictment 05/13/21.

(10).Walker asserts that he is Actually and Factually Innocent of committing any Crime

against United States Constitution or any laws under the United States.

(11).IS WALKER ACTUALLY AND FACTUALLY OF COMMITTING ANY CRIME BEFORE AND AT THE TIME

OF HIS INDICTMENT.

(12).SEE MILLER V FLORIDA 482 U.S.423 435-36 L.Ed.2d.351 107 2446 (1987)(holding that

applicable State Sentencing Statute not in effect when defendant committed offense

violates ex post facto provision.Review UNITED STATES V SWANGER 919 F.2d.94(8th Cir

1990)(holding that application Federal Sentencing amendments not in effect when

defendant committed offense violated ex post facto clause.Walker was Actually and

Factually Innocent of committing a crime or criminal act during the time of has

Indictment.

Walker states that he actually and factually Innocent.

12

st

LIST OF PARTIES

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

[xl 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:

1.)Kimberly Michelle Clairdy Walker

2.)Marcus Antonio Peterson

3.)Ramone Laza Astin

4.) Alfred Eugene ..Bell: ... * l

S?)Marquez Maurice Mickler

6.)David Lee Geathers

7.)Brandiesa Tylese Williams

8.)Porschee Laneal Walker

9.) Antwan LeQueze Major

10.)Michelle Shaquille

11.)Eugene Antwonn Farmer

RELATED CASES

3:23-cv-00950-TJC-PDB-Forfeiture Case

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

UNITED STATES V CHARLES Apprendi Jr.No.120 S.CT.2348

UNITED STATES V PHIFER NO.17-10397

UNITED STATES V JACKSON NO.21-13063

UNITED STATES V MCFADDEN NO.14-378

UNITED STATES V BRUEN NO.20-843

UNITED STATES V DUPREE: NO.57 F.4th-1269il277: (llth:cir 2023)

MILLER V FLORIDA 482 U.S.423 435-36 L.Ed.2d.351.107 S.CT.2446 (1987)

UNITED STATES V SUAREZ 911 F.2d.1016 1021-22 (5th cir 1990)

STATUTES AND RULES

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 4,5,6,8,14

21 U.S.C.S 846

21 U.S.C.§ 841(a)

18 U.S.C.S 922(g)-2pt enhancement

18 U.S.C.§ 1956 (h)

DUE PROCESS

MEAS REA

OTHER

FIREARM ENHANCEMENT- VIOLATED PETITIONERS 4th Amendment Rights Money

Laundering Enhancement-is duplicious punishment considering petitioner is

charged seperately money for laundering.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

:

1

JURISDICTION

,2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

5

CONCLUSION

6

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A ORIGINAL DECLARATION OF INDICTMENT (Pg-1)

APPENDIX Bcopy of superseding indictment (pgsi-12)

APPENDIX C LAB RESULTS FOR THE CONTROLLED BUY (pgs-1-3)

APPENDIX D LAB RESULTS FOR ALL THE DRUGS SEIZED (pgs-1-9

APPENDIX E

Mr.Walkers sentencing Transcripts (pgs-1-5)

APPENDIX F

COPY OF SCHEDULE I "CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE" (pgs-1-5)

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

[x] For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

to

a

[ ] reported at

5 or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[x] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

to

[ ] reported at

5 or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix_____ to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the_

appears at Appendix

court

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at____

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

1.

JURISDICTION

[ x| For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was Dec 5,2023.___________

[x] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date: ____________

, and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including______

(date) on

(date)

in Application No.__ A

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

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

______________________, and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including____

(date) on

(date)in

Application No.__ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

(2)

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT-4

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT-5

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT-6

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT-8

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT-14

922(g)-2pt enhancement

21 U.S.C.S846

21 U.S.C.§ 841(a)(1)

18 U.S.C.§ 1956(h)

DUE PROCESS

MENS REA

(3).

I

l

\

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

!

On January 31,2023 Convicted Petitioner Neal Merrell Walker and his co-defendants

for Conspiracy to distribute A-PVP a-pvp and MDMA and Money Laundering.Mr.Walker

received 20 years on the conspiracy to the distribute A-PVP and MDMA and a consecutive

5 year sentence for the money laundering conviction.

(4)

!

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Due to the variance between the dangerous listed "controlled substances named

in the indictment and the results of the lab testing of the "actual" substances seized

and tested, and the fact that the indictment remained unchanged a fatal and

substantially harmful error occurred that prejudiced the conviction and sentencing

in Mr. Walkers case. This fatal error also caused a number of Constitutional Amendment

Rights violations, due process violations, and also leaves to question whether, the

grand jury was misled into believing that the substances sold were indeed the

substances named in the indictment to secure an indictment, especially considering

that there was a second super-ceeding indictment that gave the government the

opportunity to correct the error but they chose to leave the indictment unchanged

constituting a fatal variance from the indictment. Mr. Walkers Conspiracy charge

stemming from 2018 technically was not criminal as it relied on substances that were

not "controlled substances" as the indictment indicated and the controlled substance"

clause not only falsely deemed the Conspiracy unlawful, but also caused a wrongful

calculation of the Petitioners base level offense a caused an unwarranted 2pt gun

enhancement that infringed on Mr. Walkers 4th Amendment rights. Mr. Walker is also

dupliciously sentenced due to the fact that he is sentenced due to the fact that he

is enhanced under conspiracy for money laundering and convicted separately and serving

a second sentence for money laundering consecutive. Petitioners Constitutional

Amendments Rights named have been violated, as well as his due process rights as

supported by the cases named and exhibits attached and he is serving a fundamentally

unjust sentence for substances he never sold and a Conspiracy that wasn't technically

lawful.

f

(5)

i

/ t to* I j

/fjohon

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted, r

Respectfully submitted,

AJval

Date:

\Ate.ikejr

3/ay/aV