Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Juan Mendez, Petitioner v. United States

filed

OCT 20 2025

:F|

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Juan Mendez

— 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 Sixth Circuit

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

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Juan. Mendez, Reg;.No, 18233-075

(Your Name)

Federal Correctional Institution

P.O.Box 7007

_____________ ___

(Address)

Marianna, FL 32447

(City, State, Zip Code)

(850) 526-2313

(Phone Number)

IRC

l.s,

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

1. Did both the United States District Court and Sixth Circuit Court

of Appeal 3-judge panel fail to properly execercise its permissible

authority to amend and apply a variety of statutory vehicles (ie:

§1B1.13(b)(5), 28 U.S.C. §2255, or Rule 60(b)(l)-(6)) to Petitioner’s

extraordinary and compelling claim(s) of his actual/factual inno­

cence, or to facially order an investigatory evidentiary hearing

on the newly removed threats upon his.life, and the lives of his

family in Mexico; and

2. Did the lower courts fail to deem the death threats against the

petitioner and his family in Mexico that forced his plea of guilty

in this matter by the now defunct and eliminated Puebla Cartel

"extraordinary and compelling" reasons for a Sentence Reduction; or

3. Did the lower courts fail to interpret the Petitioner’s Motion For

A Reduction of Sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3582,et.seq. and a re­

sultant return to his family in Mexico an attempt under 28 U.S.C.

§2255 to vacate his guilty plea or sentence (See: Doc. #401); and

4. Did the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals prejudice the Appellant’s

appeal rights by failing to place petitioner's case in abeyance

by the court in light of the United States Supreme Courts accep­

tance of certiorari in:

a) U.S. v. Bricker, No. 24-3286, 2025 WL 116016 at 1. (6th Cir.)

b) Rutherford v. United States, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 36620, (6th Cir.)

c) Carter v. United States, No. 24-860 (S.Ct. Cert.)

d) U.S. v. McCall, 56 F.4th 1048 (6th Cir. 2022)

iv

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:

RELATED CASES

1. United States of America v. Juan Mendez

U.S. District Court

Case No. 2:06-CR-20387-01-B

2. United States Court of Appeals

For The Sixth Circuit

Case No. 25-5067

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW...................................................................................................... 1

JURISDICTION..........................................................

2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED.......................

3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................................ .................................

4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT................................................................

17

CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................

18

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - Order - Denying Motion For Panel Rehearing.

APPENDIX B - Appellant's Petition For A Panel Rehearing

APPENDIX C " Order - Denying Appellant's Appeal Of The District

Court Denial Of His Motion For Compassionate Release

APPENDIX D - Order - Denying Appellant's Motion To Place Appeal

In Abeyance Pending U.S. Supreme Court Ruling

APPENDIX E - Appellant's Motion To Stay Proceedings For Cause.Shown

APPENDIX F

- Order - U.S. District Court For The Western District

Of Tennessee, Western Division

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

U.S. v. Bricker, 2025 U.S. App.LEXIS 9538

(6th Cir. 2025)

iv

Rutherford v. United States, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2209

(Cert Granted)

iv

Carter v. United States, No. 24-860

(Cert Granted)

iv

United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098

(6th Cir. 2020)

iv

Joe Fernandez v. United States, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2005

(Cert Granted)

17

U.S. v. McCall. 56 F.4th 1048

iv

(6th Cir. 2022)

STATUTES AND RULES

U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(5)

iv> 17

U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(6)

17

Rule 60(b)(l)-(6)

28 U.S.C.§2255, et.seq.

iv, 17

18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(l)(A)

17

OTHER

United States Sentencing Guideline Amendment 821, (2023)

iii

17

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

C

to

[ ] reported at

:_______ • 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

F

[x] reported at 06-cr-20387- JTF-01; 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

court

appears at Appendix

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at; or,

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

[ ] is unpublished.

1.

to

JURISDICTION

[ x] For cases from federal courts:

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

was

September 03, 2025.

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

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

Appeals on the following date:

October 01, 2025 , an(j a COpy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

A .

[ ] 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

Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution

Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution

U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(5)

U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(6)

Rule 60(b)(l)-(6)

28 U.S.C. §2255, et.seq.

18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(l)(A)

18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2)

U.S.S.G. § Amendment 821, (2023)

3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Petitioner would like to be honest, forthcoming, and trans­

parent as practible in this matter.

Many years have now passed since the inception of this case, and '

the Petitioner now feels that it is safe for himself and his

family to now reconstruct, recount, and reveal the truth in this

matter.

As Petitioner Juan Mendez will now reveal and swear to under

Penalty of Perjury, the Petitioner’s conduct, role in the offense

charged, and subsequent plea of guilty were at all times dictated

by the U.S. branch of the now defunct Puebla Cartel (formally based

in Puebla, Mexico), with whom he became unwittingly involved by

chance after meeting Christina Andres Perfecto, who as he was later

to find out was the ’’high ranking girlfriend” of the Puebla Cartel's

Boss, who once revealed to Petitioner, he could not remove himself

from the sad reality that his life, and more importantly the lives

of his family in both Mexico and the United States would be in

grave danger of great harm, death, or execution if Petitioner did

not cooperate and follow precisely the orders he was being black­

mailed into following.

Here is me and my families' stories, and for these reasons I

amnow requesting the United States Supreme Court to grant certiorari

for a review of Petitioner's extraordinary circumstances and apply

the 2023 United States Sentencing Guidelines as Petitioner has

unjustly received an unusually long sentence and he qualifies under

the new R.I.S. Guidelines, to wit:

4

I was born on June 22, 1978 in Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico. At

the approximate age of 19 years old, I, my biological sister Senora

Lucina Mendez, my Rrother-in-Law Senor Guillermo Hernandez and ■

Rigoberto Diego Sandoval, along with a group of other extended fam­

ily members immigrated illegally to the United States of America,

to work the Agricultural Fields of Lake Placid, Florida, and North

Carolina.

Six months of a year was spent in Florida picking fruit and veg­

etables, and the other six months in the tobacco fields of North

Carolina.

We were working together and living together in the U.S. for app­

roximately two years, while pooling our fund, in the hopes of form­

ing a better life for ourselves and our remaining families back in

Mexico.

At some point and time in approximately the Spring of 1999, Senor

Rigoberto Diego Sandoval approached our group and announced to us

all that he had been offered a job in Nashville, Tennessee as a

"Landlord" of a residential property; it was a higher paying pos­

ition, and he in fact departed our group shortly thereafter.

At some point approximately three or four months later, the Peti­

tioner received an offer and phone call from Senor Sanoval to come

to Nashville, Tennessee as an Assistant in the Property Management

of the Property he was now the landlord of, and Petitioner agreed.

Upon his arrival at the property, with virtually no funds, an in­

ability to speak English, no Vaild Work Visa, and the shirt on his

back, the Petitioner discovered a large group of Mexican Nationals

all living at the Residence.

5

This was not the type of employment he envisioned, and with no

money, and no place to go until he could become gainfully employed,

the Petitioner briefly accepted a Maintenance Position but informed

Senor Sandoval that this type

of situation was not the type of life­

style he wanted to create for himself here in the United States,

and gave notice that he would be looking for more suitable work and

an apartment .

Shortly thereafter, the Petitioner obtained a much better paying

job at a local Nashville computer component shipping and packing

company, and also an apartment of his own.

Within a few months, Petitioner met Maria Rita Hernandez while

she was on vacation in Nashville, Tennessee from her then place of

residence in New York City, New York.

Petitioner and Maria R. Hernandez fell in love, and after a per­

iod of time, Maria Hernandez moved to Nashville, taking an employ­

ment position at the Quality Inn Suites and becoming pregnant with

the Petitioner's first child.

At some point thereafter, it was mutually decided that Petitioner

and Maria R. Hernandez move back to her former home in New York City,

as she wanted the maternal help and assistance of her family and

close friends with her pregnancy.

After their arrival to New York City, Petitioenr began a frantic

search for any type of Legal and Gainful Employment; but as an ille­

gal Immigrant, and undocumented Mexican National, he could find no

meaningful Legal Employment.

6

Thusly, and with time running out until his first child was to

be born, the Petitioner and Maria R. Hernandez moved back to Nash­

ville, Tennessee where birth was given to Michelle Mendez-Hernandez

on March 03, 2001. .

Thereafter and for many years, the Petitioner was subsequently

and legally employed in a variety of blue-collar Residential and Comm­

ercial Construction Jobs, and additionally obtaining employment in

the Hotel Industry7throughout Nashville.

Joyously, in December of 2004, the Petitioner and Maria Hernandez

then welcomed his new born son, Angel Brayan Mendez-Hernandez into

the world, and the Petitioner's Family Obligations, to include him­

self also, now gre to four.

The Petitioner grew his monthly personal income by his buying,

restoring, and reselling used vehicles, in addition to working var­

ious j obs .

In this way, Petitioner was able to solely support his family

financially and raise his children in a comfortable manner with no

problems whatsoever, except for a personal incident/argument between

himself and Senora Hernandez in approximately March of 2002.

It should be noted that the Petitioenr has provided, proof of his

having no Mexican National Criminal History; and for any investig­

ative purposes, he also submits a copy of his Birth Certificate pro­

ving his Place of Birth as Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.

7

It must also be noted by Petitioner that due to Petitioner's clean

prior Criminal History, that fter his incident and arrest

American Law Enforcement Agents, Officers, and Age­

ncies allowed the Petitioner to remain in the United States of Ame­

rica with full and complete knowledge that he was an undocumented

illegal alien, no doubt due to his clean criminal history in both

countries .

Petitioner was not Cited, Deported, or Prohibited from remaining

and in fact maintaining his family-residency in Nashville, Tennessee

with his wife and children.

No State of Tennessee or Federal Agency objected to his presence

in Nashville, as he was a hard-working, Head-of-Household, Crime-Free;

Quiet, Good, and Providing Neighbor, and lacked any notable Criminal

History.

Sometime in 2003 to 2004, the Petitioner met Senora Christina

Andres Perfecto. She was pregnant, and was also an undocumented alien

from Mexico. She seemed pleasant, and they struck up a casual relation­

ship with Petitioner offering Ms. Perfecto casual transportation

around Nashville to assist her with those needs when he had spare

time to assist her.

Petitioner had no clue that during this period, Ms. Perfecto was

the Mistress of the Head of the Mexican Branch of the Puebla Cartel,

pregnant with his child, and currently fleeing from this Cartel Boss

into the United States of America.

At some point in 2005, Ms. Perfecto was "found" by members of the

U.S. Branch of the Puebla Cartel and returned to Mexico and the

Cartel-Boss father of her child. As Petitioner came to learn at a

8

the child was taken from Ms. Perfecto by her father, and Ms.

Perfecto fled to Oaxaca, Mexico where she alone concocted a scheme

to convince the parents of "S.M.C." to allow her to go to the United

States with Ms. Perfecto who used the name of the Petitioner to obtain

custody of "S.M.C." without the consent or knowledge of Petitioner.

Sometime in late 2005 or early 2006, Petitioner was contacted

bylocal friends in Nashville, Tennessee who told him of Ms. Perfecto's

return to town with a "friend of hers" and was looking for him or

his phone number, as Petitioner had recently changed his prior con­

tact numbers .

Petitioner made contact with Ms. Perfecto and "her friend from

Oaxaca" "S.M.C." who appeared young, hungry, and tired. Ms. Perfecto

asked Petitioner to assist them in obtaining an apartment as they

did have a couple thousand dollars, but no identification to pro­

perly obtain rental housing or transportation to obtain local emp­

loyment .

Additionally, Ms. Perfecto told Petitioner her new born child

was left with "family" in Mexico, and she was going to assist in

raising her child.

By March of 2006, Petitioner found an apartment for both Ms.

Perfecto and "S.M.C." , and made time to assist in the periodic

transportation of the females for shopping, job applications, and

general help when he had spare time to do so, as he had his own

young and growing family to care for and nurture.

9

Sometime after obtaining the apartment for Ms. Perfecto and

S.M.C., the Petitioner was informed by various members of the local

Mexican National Community that Ms. Perfecto was being searched for

by the U.S. Branch of the Puebla Cartel, at the behest of the Mexican

Boss of the Puebla Cartel and anyone who was found to be harbouring

her would be "Dealt with" by the cartel as she was the Cartel Boss'

Mistress who was on the run from him in Mexico.

Upon immediately confronting Ms. Perfecto with this information,

she revealed to Petitioner that it was true and if he did not con­

tinue to help her and "S.M.C.", Petitioner and his family would be

"Grave danger" and she began to extort, blackmail, and threaten

the Petitioner with both the U.S. Branch of the Puebla Cartel find­

ing them, and the Boss of the Mexican Puebla Cartel retaliating

against Petitioner, his wife, and his children for helping them obt­

ain the apartment and assisting them for the last several months.

This is the True Story and reality of what in fact occured to

Petitioner; not the fabrication of the truth told in the original

criminal complaint of the attached Criminal Complaint.

Let me be clear with the Bureau of Prisons R.I.S. Review Board

at all levels in regards to the contents of that Document at this

Point:

1. I did not Rape S.M.C. or sexually touch her in any manner,

whatsoever;

2. I did not run a brothel;

10

3. I never gave Ms. Perfecto my planning, intent, permission,

consent, authority, or ever discussed with her the return of her to

Mexico, the scam she used to' con "S.M.C.'s" parents into allowing

her to come to the United States with Ms. Perfecto, or ever promised

anyone a job in the United States of America;

4. I never trafficked any individual into the United States,

or conspired with anyone to perform commercial sex acts in the

United States of America;

5. I had nothing to do with any of the group of brothels

(seven locations) raided by the F.B.I. in September 2006 as these

were all controlled by the U.S. Branch of the Puebla Cartel, in

conjunction with the Mexican Puebla Cartel who was in fact search­

ing for Petitioner, Ms. Perfecto, and "S.M.C." who were using Pet­

itioner to harbour and transport them under duress and blackmail;

6. I never ever physically assaulted S.M.C. or did anything

but provide transportation to locations she and Ms. Perfecto dema­

nded to be'brought to from time to time;

7. The Petitioner never owned, operated, or ran a "Prostitu­

tion Ring" as falsely stated in the

initial Criminal Com­

plaint Report that was so full of false information, it was at a

later date superceeded.

11

8. The Petitioner never employed or paid any party, at any

time, to ever smuggle any illegal alien into the U.S. for any pur­

pose or reason.

The sad, sorry, and unfortunate truth is that Senora Perfecto

got pregnant, ran away from her then boyfriend who was the head of

both the Mexican and U.S. Branches of the now-defunct Puebla Cartel,

she then returned to him prior to the birth of their child whom he

removed from her possession, Senora Perfecto ran away from her boy­

friend again, conned "S.M.C.'s Parents" using Petitioner's name,

illegally paid someone to smuggle them across the border (getting

caught twice in the process), made their way back to Nashville, :

Tennessee with S.M.C. and enough money to rent an apartment using

an unwitting Petitioner to accomplish her goal of taking over and

operating her Puebla Cartel Boyfriend's Prostitution business in

the U.S. Branch of the Puebla Cartel out of spite, desperation, or

maybe both.

Once Petitioner was advised of who Ms. Perfecto and her boy­

friend were, and realized he had stupidly assisted her from fleeing

from her boyfriend, a known killer, and subsequently the Puebla

Cartel was searching for her, and Ms. Perfecto was now blackmailing

him to assist her in what turned

out to be her attempt to take

over her boyfriend's interests in the United States.

12

While the boss of the Puebla Cartel and father of their child

may not have done anything more than return her to him in Mexico,

that would not be the Fate of the Petitioner or his family if Pet­

itioner was revealed as being the Party who had unwittingly been

helping Senora Perfecto and other female aquaintances of hers he

had unknowingly been giving transportation to locations Senora

Perfecto instructed him to drive to.

At some point in 2006, S.M.C. was found and transferred into the

Custody of the U.S. Branch of the Puebla Cartel in Nashville, Ten­

nessee and shortly thereafter, the F.B.I. recovered her on October

13, 2006. When found, S.M.C. was romantically involved with a highranking member of the U.S. Branch of the Puebla Cartel and was

assisting them in trying to find the precise location and whereabouts

of Christina Andres Perfecto on behalf of her boyfriend, the head

of the Mexican Branch of the Puebla Cartel.

Christina Perfecto fled the apartment, and oredered Petitioner

to place her in a local motel where federal agents took them into

custody on November 04, 2006.

From the start of this case, the Petitioner was informed by mem­

bers of the U.S. Branch of the Puebla Cartel to assist in "all ways"

in "admitting" to whatever charges were brought, story told, or

"witness testimony" given in a bid to have Christina Andres

Perfecto released and deported back to Mexico and her boyfriend, ar

Petitioner's family would be killed, harmed, or

maimed. Petitioner

was told he would not be able to live or survive in any Detention

Facility, Jail, or Prison anywhere in the United States of America

if he did not agree to cooperate with the "stories being told", and

his duty to take those charges.

13

The Petitioner was told that various females working for the

U.S. Branch of the Puebla Cartel would be produced to testify

against Petitioner in response to the direct orders of the head

boss of the Mexican Branch of the Puebla Cartel as his "punishment"

for assisting Christina Perfecto.

He was told to accept his fate and suffer the America Courts’

consequence's, or his family in both Mexico and the U.S. would be

executed if he refused to do so.

The Petitioner chose the lives of his family over his own. He

in fact entered a Plea of Guilty to charges, facts, and events that

did not occur, were false, manipulated by the bosses of the Puebla

Cartel in both the United States and Mexico in their attempt to

exonerate themselves, and to attempt to maipulate an exoneration

of Christina Perfecto, the Biological Mother of his child.

Conclusion

Approx. Twenty years have passed. The bosses of the Puebla Cartel

of both the Mexican Branch and the U.S. Branch are defunct, dead,

imprisoned, or scattered to the winds.

The facts of this case are common today, and both Mexican and

American Law Enforcement know this to be true. The reaches of the

Cartel are long, deadly, and real.

I was a hard working family man. American Law Enforcement left

me and my family alone, as I worked hard, and lived a good clean

lif e .

14

I was never a pimp, sex trafficker, rapist, gangster, Cartel ■

Thug, or Brothel Operator. I tried to help my people who came to

this Country as I did with nothing but a will to do better for our­

selves in life.

I was unknowingly used, blackmailed, and manipulated by Christina

Perfecto, and. once I found out who she was, and the revenge her boy­

friend was willing to extract upon anyone who knowingly or unknow­

ingly helped her avoid his reach, it was too late.

The proof is in the records. Prior to meeting Senora Perfecto, I

had a loving family with virtually no criminal history.

Once in prison, I have a long history of Academic Studies, and

achievements, with virtually no prison Disciplinary History. SEE:

My family, wife, and children have all stood by me these long

years, and are awaiting ym release to a better time and a better

life, and are willing to return to Mexico with me if I am released.

Petitioner's family in Mexico is awaiting his return now, and

will cooperate in any way to appeal to U.S. Officials in bringing

Petitioner home now that the Puebla Cartel threat is no longer a

threat to them.

15

Petitioner prays that the United States Supreme Court grant him

Certiorari, hears his pleas for mercy, and issues a R.I.S. recom­

mendation to his sentencing court that would allow him to be re­

leased and deported home to Mexico and his family who awaits his

return.

|O -10 - CLOD'S

Date

Jua Mendez, Reg.No. 18233-075

Federal Correctional Institution

P.O.Box 7007

Marianna, FL 32447-7007

C.C.: J.M./File

16

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The Petitioner is a victim of the now defunct Puebla Cartel, as is his

family. The Petitioner has a pending application for a Commutation of Sen­

tence also pending before the Office of the United States Office of the

Pardon Attorney, Case No. C326503.

The Petitioner cannot statutorily bring these sordid facts in a 28 U.S.C.

§2255 Habeas Corpus Petition as argued by both the U.S. Attorney(s) Office

and the courts due to prescriptive time periods for filing having expired,

problems obtaining death records from Mexico in regards to Pueblo Cartel

deaths, and his lack of an attorney.

This case was and is properly brought under 18 U.S.C. §3582,et.seq. and

all applicable provisions of U.S.S.G.§1B1.13(b)(5), U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(6).

The U.S. District Courts are charged by long-standing jurisprudence in

Pro-Se petitioner filings with assisting in deeming the proper statutory

vehicle that fit the facts presented by a Pro-Se Petitioner.

Under the current statutory scheme of §2255(f)(1)-(6) the petitioner would

be statutorily barred from his following the U.S. Attorney Office’s and lower

courts suggestion that he ''refile" his claim under 28 U.S.C. §2255 to which

they will no doubt respond with a procedural time limit bar.

If the courts would have deemed Petitioner's action a §2255 action upon

his initial case review by the lower court, this "procedural time-trap"

would be avoided.

The lower courts and U.S. Attorney prosecutors focused on petitioner raising

newly enacted U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(6) as not being applicable to the facts

of this matter, but omitted §1B1.13(b)(5) and its "catch-all" provisions

enacted under the United States Sentencing Guideline Amendment 821(2023),

that was also raised by the petitioner in his §3582,et.seq. petition.

This failure by all parties to at the least order an evidentiary hearing

with appointment of counsel to intimately delve into the unbelieveable

fact that a terrified Mexican National, under the threat of he, or his family

summary execution for approx. 20 years now was finally able to tell his story.

The Government and the courts argue or proclaim that the petitioner

requested that his conviction be reversed, and thusly his case qualifies

under 28 U.S.C.§2255.

This is simply not true then, or now. The petitioner specifically moved

the court to find his circumstances as extraordinary and compelling enough

to have the Sentencing Court not only resentence him, but order him deported

back to his family in Mexico. This is a compassionate release request as

the petitioner orginally prayed for as relief.

Currently, the United States of America has declared war on the South

American and Mexican Cartels. As openly admitted by the President of the

United States of America, the Cartels and its membership have killed, maimed,

addicted, and blackmailed hundreds of thousands of people. The petitioner

is simply a minute part of this ongoing mayhem.

This country, this court, and indeed the world at large are all well

versed in the horrors of the drug cartels and their history of blackmail,

threats they will execute, and numerable stories of death to all who fail to

obey their wishes. The petitioner has spent 20 years in federal prison,

innocent of the accusations lodged against him, and fearful of the lives of

his family. Certiorari should immediately issue in the interests of justice.

1

17

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Date:

18