Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Antonio Shropshire, Petitioner v. United States

No.

24-6044

ORIGIN A!

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FILED

OCT 2 H m

supf^me^ourt:^^

ANTONIO SHROPSHIRE

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Respondents.

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States

Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ANTONIO SHROPSHIRE #62637-037

Pro-Se Petitioner

P.O. Box 5000

Yazoo City, MS 39194

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1.

Were Shropshire’s Sixth Amendment rights violated by the government’s

seizure of his trial preparation documents?

2.

Did the government violate Shropshire’s choice whether to testify, in

violation of his Sixth Amendment autonomy interest?

ii

LIST OF PARTIES

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.

The United States District Court For The District of Maryland.

2.

The United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit.

iii

RELATED CASES

United States v. Antonio Shropshire, No.l:16-cr-00051-CCB-3,

United States District Court For The District of Maryland

Judgment Entered March 1, 2018

United States v. Alexander Campbell, No. 18-4130,

United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

Judgment Entered June 24, 2020

United States v. Antonio Shropshire, No. l:21-cv-00202-CCB,

United States District Court For The District Court of Maryland

Judgment Entered May 9, 2022

United States v. Antonio Shropshire, No. 22-6642,

United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

Judgment Entered April 24, 2024

United States v. Antonio Shropshire, No. 22-6642

United States Court of Appeals For the Fourth Circuit (En-Banc)

Judgment Entered July 30, 2024

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

11

LIST OF PARTIES

111

RELATED CASES

IV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

IV

OPINIONS BELOW

1

JURISDICTION

2

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES INVOLVED

3

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

5

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

10

10

12

14

A. Government Interference

B. Autonomy Interest.........

C. National Importance......

16

CONCLUSION

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit Request

For C.O.A. Dismissed

APPENDIX 2

United States District Court For The District Court of Maryland Denied

APPENDIX 3

United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit Rehearing

En-Banc - Denied

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGES

CASES

Booth v. Jackson, 2023 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60201 (W.D. Washington April 5, 2023).... 12^

Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 96 S. Ct. 1330, 47 L. Ed. 2d 592 (1976)

12

Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 7, L. Ed. 2d, 82, S. Ct. 510 (1962)

12

McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414, 422, 138 S. Ct. 1500, 200 L. Ed. 2d 821 (2018).. 12

Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 109 S. Ct. 594, 102 L. Ed. 624 (1989)

11

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S 45, 68, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 (1932)

10

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).. 12

United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 683, 104, S Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)

13

United States v. Smith, 648 F. 3d 588 (4th Cir 2011)

10

Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 97 S. Ct. 837, 51 L. Ed 2d 30 (1977)

15

Weaver v Massachusetts, 528 U.S. 286, 296, 137 S. Ct. 1899, 1907 L. Ed. 2d 420

(2017)

13

STATUTES

21 U.S.C. 846

4

21 U.S.C. 841

4

21 U.S.C. 841(A)(1)

4

28 U.S.C. 2255

3

28 U.S.C. 1254(1)

2

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

Sixth Amendment

3

vi

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of The United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

appears at Appendix 1 and is reported at United States v. Antonio Shropshire, 2024

U.S. App lexis 9926 (4th Cir. 2024)

The opinion of The United States District Court For The District Court of

Maryland appears at Appendix 2 and is reported at United - States v. Antonio

Shropshire, 2022 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83353 2022 WL 1451649 (D. MD. May 9, 2022).

The opinion of The United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

(En-Banc) appears at Appendix 3 and is reported at United States v. Antonio

Shropshire, 2024 U.S. App. Lexis 18888 (4th Cir. 2024).

1

JURISDICTION

The Judgment of The United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

was entered on April 24, 2024. Rehearing was sought and denied on July 30, 2024.

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

2

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES INVOLVED

1.

The Sixth Amendment, United States Constitution, provides:

“In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy

and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein

the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been

previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and

cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against

him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

2.

The statute under which Petitioner sought post-conviction relief was 28

U.S.C. 2255:

Federal Custody: Remedies on Motion Attacking Sentence:

“A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of

Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the

sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the

United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose

such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum

authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may

move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or

correct the sentence.”

“Unless the motion and files and records of the case conclusively show

that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice

thereof to be served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt

hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and

conclusions of law with respect thereto. If the courts finds that the

judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence

imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral

attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the

constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment

vulnerable to collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set the

judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence him or

grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.”

3

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 23, 2017, in The District Court For Maryland, a federal grand

jury returned a Third Superseding Indictment charging Shropshire, here as

"Petitioner," along with co-defendants. Count one charged all defendants with

conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation

of 21 U.S.C 846. Count three charged Petitioner with possession with intent to

distribute and distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Count Seven

charged Petitioner with possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C 841.

A jury trial commenced on these charges on October 16, 2017. A jury

convicted Petitioner on these charges on October 31, 2017, following an 11-day trial.

The District Court sentenced Petitioner to 300 months imprisonment, entering its

judgment on March 1, 2018. On June 24, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals

for the Fourth Circuit issued an order affirming Petitioner's conviction.

On January 26, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C 2255. (ECF

454.) (ECF here refers to case no. l:16-cr-00051-SAG). On April 20, 2021, Petitioner

filed a motion for an Expedited Evidentiary hearing Under 28 U.S.C 2255. (ECF

466.) The Government replied to Petitioner's motion. (ECF 479.) On May 9, 2022,

the District Court denied Petitioner's motion. (App. 2) Petitioner sought C.O.A in

the Fourth Circuit which was denied on April 24, 2024. (App. 1) The request for EnBanc review was denied on July 30, 2024. (App. 3) This Petition for a Writ of

Certiorari follows:

4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In September of 2017, trial counsel requested a continuance of the October

trial. Counsel explains Shropshire is a very hands-on client who insists on having

ery active involvement in his case." Further, explaining that newly appointed trial

counsel "needs time to review the voluminous discovery in this case." (ECF 219,

Page 3.) The request was denied.

On October 8, 2017, Petitioner placed a jail call to his girlfriend, who was

helping him prepare for trial. Petitioner explained to his girlfriend that he does not

trust his attorney and has to assume he [his attorney] wasn't doing his job, so he

[Petitioner] has to do his job. Petitioner gave his girlfriend the names of the

Government's witnesses and asked her to look them up on Maryland Case Search,

[a Judicial website] to see if the witnesses had any pending charges or prior

convictions in the State of Maryland. (ECF 454-3, Petitioner's Sworn Affidavit.)

On October 13, 2017, three days before Petitioner's trial was to begin, a law

enforcement officer came into his cell, without authority or consent, and removed all

of Petitioner's legal documents that he was preparing for use at trial. After the

seizure, the Government notified the District Court that there was "a potential

breach of the court's protective order."

Trial commenced on October 16, 2017. During jury selection and the following

days, trial counsel explains:

5

There's still things missing that he needs for trial. The Government

explained that A.U.S.A Romano reviewed the documents and everything they seized

was returned, except for one document. (ECF 398 Page 100-101.)

The day after counsel explains, "I think he's greatly prejudiced by not having

his items." The U.S. Marshals have his materials, and he needs them for trial prep.

Further explaining that him having his documents "would have been particularly

helpful" in presenting his defense. The District Court explains, "I don't know what

this other material is that would be prejudicial or, you know, or not." (ECF 399,

Page 227-229.)

The following day, Petitioner wrote to the Court, "I have been held at

Chesapeake Detention Facility (C.D.F.) since my arrest where it is impossible to

effectively prepare for trial. I need my legal belongings to effectively prepare for

trial and I don't have them." Further explaining, "I take my rights and freedom very

seriously" and "my legal defense is compromised" (ECF 262.)

The following day, the District Court explained, "The Marshals, as was

mentioned in Court yesterday, but also Deputy U.S. Marshal Sterling Johnson

confirmed that the Marshals do not have/do not keep people's papers and

specifically do not have Mr. Shropshire's papers." (ECF 400 Page 4/22-25.)

On October 20, 2017, Petitioner filed an informal complaint with C.D.F. staff

explaining he needs his documents for trial and his attorney-client privilege has

been violated. (ECF 454-1, Informal Complaint.)

6

After the Government closed its case, the District Court asked Petitioner,

would he be testifying on his own behalf:

"I originally wanted to testify on my own behalf about the things that happen

in this case, but I've been prepping over the time I've been incarcerated, and I wrote

down a number of questions that I wanted my defense attorney to go over to prep

for trial. And when my things were taken, everything was taken from me, my list of

questions, and a lot of other things that I was preparing for trial, and I don't have

those things. The only reason why I'm not testifying is because I don't have my

belongings to go over the things I want to speak about, the things I wanted him

[trial counsel] to ask me, and that is the only reason why I'm not testifying." (ECF

404, Page 152/18-22.)

The Government explained they seized Petitioner's material because he was

on a jail call "discussing personal identifying information of likely government

witnesses" and "out of concern over those witnesses' safety" his documents were

seized. (ECF 404, Page 153/9-15.)

On November 20, 2017, Petitioner received a response to his informal

complaint, which wasn't received by staff until November 6, 2017. (ECF 454-1)

C.D.F. staff explains that U.S. Marshal David Ashton has confirmed that the

documents were turned over to the Marshal's service. (ECF 454-2, Response To

Complaint.) Some time in January or February of 2018, Petitioner's documents

were returned to him. (ECF 454-3 Petitioner's Sworn Affidavit.)

7

On direct appeal, in The Fourth Circuit, Petitioner argued that his trial

counsel failed to protect his Sixth Amendment rights after the Government's

unjustified seizure of his trial preparation documents. Appeal: 18-4130, Doc 75.

During oral arguments held on October 31, 2019, the following was said:

APPELLANT COUNSEL: "I want to address, going back to the Sixth

Amendment issue on behalf of Mr. Shropshire. I want to point out to

the court in terms of the standard of review. The facts that Mr. Wise

[The Government] presented the court about the nature of these [jail]

calls, what the effect of that was, those are representations by the

government. These were never the subject of an evidentiary hearing.

The court below never made a finding of fact. Therefore, there are no

findings to which this court can differ."

THE FOURTH CIRCUIT: "Well isn't that reason why maybe we

should leave this until a 2255, where there can be an evidentiary

hearing?"

APPELLANT COUNSEL: "It's our position that there should've been.

The court should have sent this down to the magistrate for an

evidentiary hearing to find out what did happen."

(www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments

United States v. Campbell; October 31, 2019 at 38:05-39:53)

In Petitioner's motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255, he argued that:

(1.) "The government's seizure interfered with his attorney-client

relationship and the right to prepare for trial.” (ECF 454 Page 3-8.)

(2.) "The government interfered with his Due Process and the right to

choose whether to testify, in violation of his Sixth Amendment

Autonomy Interest." (ECF 454 Page 10-14.)

The Government replied contending that Petitioner is procedurally barred

from raising such claims. (ECF 479 Page 7-10.)

The District Court held, "Even assuming" Petitioner's documents were not

returned, "he has demonstrated nothing specific that would interfere with his Due

8

Process or Sixth Amendment rights." Holding that "Nor has he shown how any

missing documents interfered with his choice of whether to testify." (App. 2)

Petitioner requested for a C.O.A. on the above claims, further arguing that

because he "Presented evidence that showed the Government recklessly misled the

court to believe the documents were returned, was adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further." (Appeal 22-6642 Opening Brief, Page 4.)

9

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

A.

GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE

This is a Government Interference case into Petitioner's Sixth Amendment.

Justice Sutherian famously explained in Powell v. Alabama:

The right to be heard would be in many cases of little avail if it did not

comprehend the right to be heard by counsel... Even the intelligent and educated

layman lacks both the skills and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even

though he may have a perfect one. He requests the guiding hand of counsel at every

step in the proceeding against him. 287 U.S. 45, 68, 53, S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158

(1932).

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Justice Sutherian's poignant

words make plain that only when a defendant is heard by counsel can a defendant

be heard through counsel. The mere physical presence of competent counsel is not

enough: It is the marriage of the attorney's legal knowledge and mature judgment

with the defendant's factual knowledge that makes for an adequate defense. United

States v. Smith, 648 F .3d at 588 (4th Cir. 2011).

The District Court, in these section 2255 proceedings, held that Petitioner

"was represented by counsel, who properly had possession of the discovery material

and was prepared to present Shropshire's case at the time." (App. 2) Petitioner

argued in his 2255 that the law in Smith, quoting Powell v. Alabama

Clearly

establishes that it is the marriage of attorney's legal knowledge and the defendant's

10

factual knowledge of the case that makes for an adequate defense. Simply having

an attorney, who has possession of the discovery is not enough. As The Fourth

Circuit explains, "Mere physical presence of competent counsel is not enough."

Smith at 588.

Petitioner's argument is that the Government's action in not returning his

documents chilled his ability to communicate with his trial counsel. This is a clear

case of Government interference into the attorney-client relationship, infringing on

Petitioner's ability to participate in his own defense, and, consequently, with his

counsel's ability to provide an adequate defense as Smith quoting Powell v.

Alabama explains.

Trial counsel's statements that Petitioner having his documents "would have

been particularly helpful" in presenting his defense, constitutes not only counsel's

need of Petitioner's factual knowledge of the case but displays the Government's

failure to return the documents, interfered with counsel's ability to make decisions

about how to conduct the defense.

Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 109 S. Ct. 594, 599 (1989) (The government can

violate the Sixth Amendment by interfering in certain ways with counsel's ability to

make independent decisions about how to conduct the defense).

The District Court, despite explaining "I don't know what this other material

is that would be prejudicial, or you know, or not" (ECF 399 Page 229/16-17) did not

hold a hearing to determine what did or did not happen. Failing to proceed in

conformity with the provisions of 28 U.S.C 2255, when it made finding of

11

controverted issues of fact, such as Petitioner's counsel was prepared for trial,

without notice to the Petitioner and without a hearing.

Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 7 L Ed. 2d, 82 S. Ct. 510 (1962).

This Court has decided two cases involving court-ordered interference with

attorney-client communication: Geders v. United States and Perry v. Leeke. In

Geders, This Court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was

violated when the trial court prohibited Geders from speaking with his attorney

during overnight recess that interrupted his testimony. 425 U.S at 91, 96 S. Ct.

1330, 47 L. Ed 2d 592 (1976). In Perry, this Court considered whether the Geders

Rule applied to an order directing a defendant not to consult with his attorney

during a 15-minute recess in the middle of the defendant's trial. 488 U.S. at 274,

109 S. Ct. 594, 102 L. Ed 2d 624 (1989).

The situation is not much different here. Government interference that

inhibits a criminal defendant's ability to speak with his counsel, such as by seizing

documents that were prepared to inform counsel of the facts, could be effectively the

same as the court physically depriving the defendant an opportunity to speak with

counsel.

Booth v. Jackson, 2023 U.S Dist. Lexis 60201 at Lexis 29 (W.D. Washington

April 5, 2023).

B.

AUTONOMY INTEREST

This Court in McCoy v Louisiana, notes that some errors implicate "a client's

autonomy, not counsel's competence" and the traditional Strickland v. Washington

12

or United States v. Cronic analysis does not apply. The type of errors that implicate

a client's autonomy must be "structural errors in the trial process itself," such as

"impinging on the right to counsel of choice" or "a judge's failure to tell the jury that

it may not convict unless it finds the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Some decisions, however, are reserved for the client-notable, whether to plead

guilty, waive a jury, testify on his or her own behalf, or take an appeal. 138 S. Ct. at

1508-11, 200 L. Ed 821 (2018).

During Petitioner's trial, he explains:

"The only reason why I'm not testifying is because I don't have my

belongings to go over the things I want to speak about." (ECF 404 Page

152/18-22.)

The same belongings the Government recklessly misled the Court to believe they

did not have.

This Court in Weaver v. Massachusetts has presented three broad rationales

to identify errors as structural: (1) If the right at issue is not designed to protect the

defendant from errors conviction but instead protect some other interest; (2) If the

effects of the error are simply too hard to measure; and (3) If the error always

results in fundamental unfairness.

137 S. Ct. 1899, at 1907-08, L. Ed 2d 420 (2017).

Petitioner's right to choose whether to testify falls within the first, if not all of

Weaver's categories. Like the right to represent oneself, it is "based on the

fundamental legal principle that a defendant must be allowed to make his own

choices about the proper way to protect his own liberty." McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1509

(citing Weaver, 137 S. Ct. at 1908). In this case, Petitioner raised the need for the

13

return of the documents before it was time to choose whether to testify. Petitioner's

choice not to testify was not his own. It was the result of the Government's actions

in not returning the documents, violating his autonomy interest. Indeed, the Sixth

Amendment contemplated that "The accused is the master of his own defense" and

thus certain decisions, including the choice whether to testify, are reserved for the

defendant. McCoy, 138 S. Ct. at 1508.

The District Court's ruling that "the information he says he wanted to

explain to the jury was all information known to him," was clear error and beside

the point. The District Court cites Petitioner's 2255 as evidence everything was

known to him at the time. (App. 2) As Petitioner explains in his sworn affidavit,

(ECF 454-3) his documents were returned 2-3 months after the trial, which is how

he was able to cite some of what he was going to testify to in his 2255.

In sum, the choice falls within the first category of structural errors because it "is

not designed to protect the defendant from erroneous convictions but instead

protects some other interest." Namely, the defendant's right to choose how best to

protect his own liberty. Weaver, 137 S. Ct. at 1908.

C.

NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

Government Interference claims, such as Petitioner's are of national

importance because they have significant national implications for the

administration of justice, and the protection of constitutional rights. Such cases

have a profound impact on law enforcement practices, prosecutorial conduct,

defense strategies, and rights of defendants.

14

While there are cases such as Geders (1976); Weatherford v. Bursey (1977);

Strickland (1984); Cronic (1984) and Perry (1989), courts have struggled to define

what burden a defendant must meet to demonstrate Government Interference into

their defenses. Geders and Perry address court-ordered interference, Strickland and

Cronic do not address Sixth Amendment claims based on State/Government

Interference with counsel's assistance, and Weatherford deals with the privacy of

communication with counsel.

Granting a Certiorari in this case will define Government Interference and

lead to important court cases that protect civil liberties, which can strengthen the

safeguard against Government overreach and ensure that the rights of citizens are

upheld.

15

CONCLUSION

The judgment below is a unique departure from decisions of this Court that

require convictions based on Government Interference be set aside. This Court

should grant this Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Respectfully Submitted,

Antonio Shropshire #62637037

Pro-Se Petitioner

P.O. Box 5000

Yazoo City, MS 39194

16