Petition for Rehearing — In Re Sefe A. Almedom, Petitioner

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Sefe Almedom A705 623

Petitioner Pro Se,

Vs Case No. 24-6902

George Fedredick, Warden

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Respondent , EN BANC PER CURIAM

PER RULE 44

PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC PER CURTAM

PER RULE 44

Now comes Pro Se Petitioner in the above caption case and respectfully Beseech this Most Honorable Tribunal in His PETITION FOR REHEARING EN

BANC PER CURIAM. The reasons for the cause of action is more fully Supplicated herein, hereafter, to wit;

1, Ag this Court have repeatly Heard Cases in Clear Violation of Federal Constitutional/Statutory law as in this Case. When the Ohio Supreme

Court have Personally Ruled Contrary to a Well Established Ruling by this

Court. SEE: LOCKETT VS OHIO, 98 S.Ct. 2945, along with Ohio's Supreme

Court Ruling to the Contrary, see Entry in support, for a Correct Ruling

concerning this decision, for which is ever PRAYED.

2. Further, this Court has Ruled once a Statute has been Abrogated by

An Executive Order, State Officials Lack Wholly Subject Matter and/or Per

sonal Jurisdiction to Act. SEE: FELONIES-SENTENCES EFFECTIVE UNTIL JULY

Olst, 1996, that need to be Considered by this Court, for which is ever

PRAYED.

3. Finally, this Court will not allow Fraud Upon The Court Knowingly,

Nor Tolerate Knowingly False Testimony Uncorrected in Violation of well

established Federal Constitutional And Statutory Law to be Violated as in

this Case, for consideration before this Court, for which is ever PRAYED.

Therefore, Nine Reasonable Minded, Rational Person as Facts Finder

Siouldn't Tenore Well Established Federal Constitutional Law as Decided by

this Court, Or An Unreasonable Application of Well Established Federal /

State Constitutional And Statutory Law to be Violated as in this Case.

When the Petitioner is Supplicating this Most Honorable Tribunal to Consider Hearing this Case. As the Petitioner is Beseeching this Court of

the Highest Moral Standards, to Address these Federal And State Substantive/Procedural Constitutional/Statutory Rights for a Fair and Neutral

decision in this Case, for which is ever PRAYED, in Compliance with SEE:

HAZEL-ALTAS GLASS CO. VS HARTFORD EMPIRE CO.; 322 U.S. 238 coneaming

Fraud Upon The Court, and GLOSSIP VS OKLAHOMA, 145 S.Ct. 612, 2025 U.S.

LEXIS 865 concerning Prosecution's Failure To Correct a Witness's Trial

Testimony in Violated of the Due Process Clause, for which is ever PRAYED

Respectfully submitted,

Sefe “A. Almedom} Pro Se

Box 57, A705 623, 3/D 31-B

Marion, Ohio 43301-0057

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, hereby Certify, that a copy of the Petitioner's Petition For Rehearing

En Banc Per Curiam was sent Via Regular U.S. Ordinary Mail to the following parties, to wit; The Supreme Court Of The United States, Clerk Of Cou

rt's Office, 1 First Street, North East, Washington, D.C, 20543-0001; And

to: Ohio Attorney General's Office, Correctional Litigation Section, ” 30

East Broad Street, 23rd Floor, Columbus , Ohio OAGO-43215. This

day of — Apri 30 25. 4

Sefe A. mas == See

Box 57, A705 623, "3/D 31-B

Marion, Ohio 43301-0057

FILE, STAMP & RETURN

I hereby Certify, that this Certificate In Support Of Rehearing along with Federal Substantive Constitutional Reasons

for this Most Honorable Court's Independant Examination, to wit

1. Accordingly The United States Supreme Court Ruled. "No

Void Entry," contrary to well established Federal Constitutional And Statutory Law, will be allowed to stand Contrary to a

Federal: Constitutional Precedent decided.-by this Court. In::.SEE:.....-

LOCKETT VS OHIO, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, for which is ever

PRAYED.

2. Furthermore, this Court have Ruled. "A LIE IS A LIE,"

no matter [*270] what its subject, and if it is in any way Relevant to the Case. This Court has the responsibility and a

Duty to Correct what it knows to be False and Elicit thats not

the Truth. When an Executive Order has Abrogated that Statute.

According to: FELONIES SENTENCING EFFECTIVE UNTIL JULY 01ST,

1996. NAPUE VS ILLINOIS, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, for which:

is ever PRAYED.

3. Finally, this Court have Repeatly Ruled against, "Fraud

Upon The Court," based on Knowingly False Evidence Or Testimony

in any Court of Law. The U.S. Supreme Court has a Duty to make

its Own Independant Examination of the Record. When Federal

Constitutional Deptivetion are alleged as in this Case according to: GLOSSIP VS OKLAHOMA, 145 S.Ct. 612, 2025 U.S. LEXIS

865, for which is ever PRAYED. 1/

Respectful Submitted,

Box 57, A705 623, 3/D 23-B

Marion, Ohio 43301-0057

1/ Petition For Rehearing En Banc Per Curiam Per Rule 44.,and

Certify that this Petition for Rehraing is Presented in Good

Faith and Not for Delay, for which is ever PRAYED.

en a a ee ~

THE SUPREME cane OF a STATE OF OHIO

THE STATE OF Off0,; = 9 "*. po 1978 TER

City of Columbus. AvIGNT, (418 > 79 wit: August 16, 1978

“Ea te a 2, - : Ez N. T R ¥y

The Court coming o now to penitles the judgment of the Supreme lm,

Court of the United States in AG carmen of Lockett v. Ohio and Rell v. Ohie, and in -

conformity with the mandstas issued on 1 the basis thersof, hereby orders that the"

Atdgrments in the eirses if Het forth hercinahe a. if pfatiilagy Ue desiih eee ne Of pach

of the defendants Harned ther om, are her chy modified and the death Sentence of each

of such defendants ig reduced to life imprisonment.

ft is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court issue & certified

" copy of this. entry to the Superintendent of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility who

shall acknowledge receipt thereof, and io the Clerks of the Courts of Common Pleas

of the counties named herein,

Case No. ; . 7 i * "oe County

"75-149 State of Ohio ‘v. Carl L. Bayless in Summit

. 75-460 State of Ohio v, Roger L. Strodes . . Clark

75-843 State of Ohio v. John William Harris ; Franklin

73-975 . State of Ohio v. James J. Royster Franklin

75-1070 State of Ohio v. ‘Taylor Hancock pa ntetin

76-38 ‘State of Ohio v. Floyd Edwards . . Summit

76-137 State of Ohio v, Ricardo L. Woods Hamilton

76-143 State of Ohio v. Robert P. Lytle Greene

76-155 _ State of Ohio v, Roland A. Reaves Hamilton *

76-219 State af Ohio v. Jesse Black Richland

16-424 State of Ohio v. Sandra Lockett . Summieé:

76-499 State of Ohio v. Willie Lee Bell Hamiltnan

434 U.S.

5. MEMORANDUM DECISIONS

—~— Cite 23198-80198} —

tencing phase. The joint opinion announeing the judgment found that the Texas

courts had construed the second special

question “so as to-allow a defendant to

bring to the jury's attention whatever mitigating circumstances he may be able to

show.” fd., at 272, 96 8.Ct., at 2956 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, JJ.).

. TiLGas os Fi 455 US. 104, £02 S.Ct. 969,

Tl LE&2d 4 0982) the Court

ger %. = Carolina, “aT6 US. 1, 106

S.Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986), the Court

expressly stated that the sentencer must he

given all mitigating evidence, defined as

any evidence that serve ‘as a basis

for a sentence less-than death.” Id., at 5,

106 S.Ct., at 1671 (quoting Lockett, supra,

438 US., at 604, 98 S.Ct., at 2964).

This Kine of cases culminated last term in

quoting Skip; m, Supra, 416 US., at

4, -106 S.Ct, at 1871 i ton quoting Eddings, supra, 458 US., at 110, 102 S.Ct, at

974), In considering the validity of a Florida death sentence, the Court concluded

that “it could not be clearer that the advisory jury was instructed not to consider, and

the sentencing judge refused to consider,

iragt su, on

evidence of nonstatutory mitigating

cumstances, and that the procedtii

-therefore did not comport with the rap

ments of Skipper ..., [vy South

S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90 LEG

( ] Eddings ..., [v. Oklahoma

US. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, TL

(1982)], and Lockett ... [v. Ohio, 488 17.8.

586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 LEd2d 973 (is b78)}."

‘481 US., at 399, 107 S.Ct, at 182/

m these cases itis clear that 4 lt vote

ra. gg re ‘e :

‘ne

reasons underlying this firmly es dilished

rule lie in the unique nature.of the death

penalty, “[Dijeath is a ‘punishmen & differ :

ent from all other sanctions,’ [cital on] and

therefore the considerations thaffi inform

the sentencing decision may he | ¢ iferent

from thoee that might be releva nt ° other

liability or punishment de’ uf ations.”

Booth v. Maryland, 482 US. } 509, »

12, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 2596, n. 12, § | LBd.2d

440 (1987) (quoting Woodson v. Mi th Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 808-804, 805) 96 $.C%.

29718, 2990-2991, 2991, 49 ke oc Odd

(1976) {plurality opinion of §

and STEVENS, JJ). To this ¢ and l, mitigating evidence that might be exciudable in

noncapital-sentencing procedurey may be

erucial in a capital case. i!

prey 5. 6¢

107 8. Zi6, 7 L.a.24 66 (us

soort, bald ¢ SS OrICALy that nants

ath susbencan ace Gieel abawION rate

ezminain forehadove 2a. On, Suupra. These cases ve i} 8 sentencer cannot make a judgment bj od on the

166 US, at 119 102 S.Ct, f E S15. ‘This

Be cambios S « ngieare

quence unadorned | instructions

cree under Texas law.

--cocrerrtnr —ee

) CCS EFUB

Court: Supreme Court

Date: December 4, 1916

The power to pardon, including the power to reprieve or commute, belongs to

How. 307; , 33. The-Laui c@ncerns

only fines. If the power here in question appertain to the: pardoning power, it

Cannot belong te the court; if it be not a power of pardon, the court Could only

acquire it through act of Congress or common law. See Biackstone, Tucker's

ed., Book IV, ch. soci, p. 397. Congress has hever attempted to bestow such a

power on the District Courts or Judges. It has merely conferred a limited power

| Of parole on judges In the District of Columbia (36 Stat, 864). If it had ever

meant to confér so wide a power, it would have said so plainly. There are laws

which‘provide for stay of execution on fines and penalties in certain Specific

instances; for avoiding indefinite imprisonment on account of fines and costs; —

for motions for new trials, motions in arrest of judgment, and writs of error.

Otherwise, the federal Statutes evince a plain intention that sentence must be

prompt and execution likewise,

”

Note.~-(a) "The governor Shall have the power to grant Feprieves,

commutations, and pardons, after conviction, for all offences _

except treason and cases of impeachment, upon such conditions,

and with such restrictions an imitations as he may think proper,

subject to such regulations as May be provided by law relative to

the manner. of applying for pardons. Upon conviction for treason,

he shall have power fo suspend the execution of the sentence,

until the. case shall be freported.to the legislature at its next

meeting, when the legislature shall either pardon or cornmute the:

sentence, direct the execution of the senten¢e, or grant’ .

a_[**4]_ further reprieve. He shall annually communicate to the

legislature each case of reprieve, commutation, or pardon

granted; stating the name of the convict, the crime of which he

Nas Convicted, the sentence and its. date, and the date of the

zommutation, pardon, or reprieve," (Const. 1846, art. 4, § 5.) ,

COLUMBUS - The U.S. Supreme

Court on Wednesday added. The

Court without comment refused to

allow the. execution delayed by

Federal Courts over concems that

7 Sct ae ) Aaa tan the State continues to deviate

‘PGi its WE Sst flees hie lene too often from the written Rules.

. as x The Court Denied the State's

or Appeal that said Ohio had’ Strayed

oy too far from its Policies to be

Trusted to carry out the Death

Sentence for now.