Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Oscar Adrian Marquez, Petitioner v. United States

25-708.0 (

ORIGINAL

CASE NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OP THE UNITED STATES

FILED

JUL 2 9 2025 '

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT, U.S.

IN RE OSCAR MARQUEZ

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Oscar Marquez 23487-180

Fedral Correctional Institute-Cumberland

Counter Terrorist Unit

Post Office Box #1000

Cumberland, Maryland 21501

PRECEIVED

RECEIVED

FEB 2 7 2026

OFFICE OF,THE|£LF|fiK

SUPREME COURT U s-~

I

AUG 2 7 2025

I woo

■QUESTIONS) PRESENTED

•|

I.

Whether Anyone Other Thad A

United States Attorney Can

File Charges In A Federa: Court

LIST OF PARTIES

I

I

i

>

•’

.

■

•

i

•

•

’

‘

.

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

*

I

i*

A

*

*

fr] 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 fol ows:'

j

• .

<*

*

►

9

United States oi America]

t

\ . " .

• ,

’ ’*

’

-

’

-■ •

RELATED CASES .

Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v| Gordon,'819*F.3d 117$ (9th, 2015)

East Bay Sanctuary Covenant r. Garland, 994 F.3d 962 (9th, 2021)

Hollingsworth, 133 SCf. at 2159

Lujan ,.-504 U.S. at|s‘61

•

Meland v. Weber, U.^.App LEXIS 1537& (9th, 2021)

<■ \

'

’

.

*

Baines vZ Byrd, 117 SCt. 231^ (1977)

Revolution Eyewear he,'U.S.jDist LEXIS 105188 (9th, 2007)

Sebelius v. Auburn Leg*! Medfctr

133 SCt. 817,-184 (2013)

Sierra’Nev. Trandp. Inc. v.jNev. Transp. Auth.,-U.S. App LEXIS 27677 (9th, 2023)

Steel Co. V. Citizens-for

Env523 U.S. 83 (1998)

____Better

-_____

,

- '

Skaff v. Meridien N \ iAm. Beverly Hills, LLC, 506 F.3d 832, 838 (9th, 2007)

•

U.S, v. Bryson, 434 F.Supp 9^6 (1977)

U.S, v. Davis, 906 if.2d 829 (2nd, 1990)

U.S, v. Hayes, 115 |Ct. 2431 (1995)

U.S, v. Morfin-Diaz 566 Fed Appx 557 (9th, 2014)

Warth v. Seldin, 421 U.S. 49(b (1975)

Wilbur v. Locke, 42? F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th, 2005)

White v. Lee, 227 Fj3d 1214 9th, 2000)

Stable of contents

OPINIONS BELOwl....*.'.-.................. .......... ..........................

JURISDICTION...-....!'.......................

‘

I

constitution'al And statutory provisions involved

STATEMENT OF TflE CASE.... ... ........ :..... .'...... ......

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.... ......... .-.A.'....... ...........

1

I

’

*'. ■

•

CONCLUSION.,......-.!....'..-.... !. ______________ ___ 1.........

INDEX TO APPENDICES'.

f “ '

'

■ ■

.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

Copy of{the Criminal Complaint

I

I

.i > . *"

l

I Complainant's Affidavit "

I»

»

•

APPENDIX D

* *■ Motion to supplement Brief, raising Standing iqsue

-J

- 1

•Jleply tp government's response raising standing issue

APPENDIX E

Transcripts challenging jurisdiction before trial

.

V

'APPENDIX'F

; Appendix G.

...Appendix H

Appendix I

•[ Order denying- COA

.

; Order denying Motion to Reconsider '

-

!

"

•• •

-

•

-

’’Order denying Motion to vacate 'or 'Correct sentence •

Order tjenying C.O.A. by the Ninth Circuit.Court -

■....

Reference To The Opinion Below

-On 11-19-2024, the Sentencing Court entered a final Order but cited no

Case-Law.

-28 U.S.C. §2255(f)(l) was cited as the reason for the denial.

-28: U.S.C. §547(1) was cited to state that a Task Force Officer is a

United States ("U.S/') Attorney. (See Atta 8H)

Jurisdiction

This Court's Jurisdiction derives from Article III of the Constitution

ans S. Ct. R. 20 which is extended by Rule 17 of to review the denial of Petitioner's

Motion uner 28 U.S.C. §2255 in the Order dated 11-19-2024 by the Sentencing Court

(see Atta. 8H) and 3-31-2025 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (see Atta. 91).

Concise Statement Of The Case

-On 8-20-2024, Petitioner filed a Motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255 showing that a

challenge to a lack of Article III Standing is non-waivable and non-forfeitable, can

be raised at any time, and cannot "be vanquished by a statute of limitations affir­

mative defense such as §2255."(DKT 270)

-On 8-26-2024, the Sentencing Court ordered the government to respond.

-On 9-16-2024, Natalie k. Wright (Wright), as the government’s representative,

filed a response stating 1) that a Task Force Officer can commence a prosecution, 2)

that §2255's statute of limitations estoppels any challenge to a lackidf Article III

Standing, and 3) that a Task Force Officer is appointed in the manner prescribed by

Article II, §3. (DKT 272).

-On 10-03-2024, Petitioner replied showing l)that a non-waivable, non-forfei­

table challenge to a lack of Article III Standing can be raised at any time, 2)only

an officer appointed by the President is exempt from the injury requirement of Arti­

cle I'll that every individual bears the burden of proving, and 3)that no such person

with such a stake in the outcome claimed an injury on 7-30-2019, the date of the

filing of Cheryl Banks’ Federal Criminal Complaint, therefore, there was no Case or

Controversy for the U.S. Attorney to prosecute. (DKT 273).

-On 11-19-2024, the Sentencing Court denied Petitioner's §2255 by l)raising the

statute of limitations affirmative defense under §2255(f)(l), 2)stating that Cheryl

Banks is a U.S. Attorney under 28 U.S.C. §547(1), and 3)stating that a lack of Arti­

cle III Standing is frivolous and warrant's dismissal of a Motion under §2255. (DKT

275)(See Atta. 8H).

-On 12-16-2024, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration Which was con­

strued as a Notice of Appeal. (DKT 278).

-On 1-30-2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded to the Sentencing

Court to issue a C.O.A. or to state its reasons for the denial.

-On 2-19-2025, the Sentencing Court denied Petitioner's C.O.A. (See Atta. 6F).

-On 3-21-2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner a C.O.A.

(See Atta. 91).

-On 5-12-2025, Petitioenr filed a Motion for Reconsideration and was denied

by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

-On 8-14-2025, Petitioner filed a Petitionrtfor Writ of Certiorari in this

Court.

28 U.S.C. §2255 gave the court of first instance jurisdiction and authority

to reevaluate the entire sentence beginning with the threshold matter of Article III

Standing.

Comes now, Petitioner., with a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Judgment

of the United States Court of Appeals for the,Ninth.Circuit and in support shows the

*

s

*

following:

LEGAL STANDARD

i

.

I

THE LAW

Article III of .the Constitution provides courts with the judicial power to

hear a case or controversy. In order to have a "Case” or "Controversy11 a party in“

voicing the jurisdiction of the federal court bears the burden of establishing Con­

stitutional Article III Standing. Meland v. Weber, U.S. App .LEXIS 15378 (9th,2021)

("The party invoicing federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the ele­

ments of standing.”); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975)("The rules of standing,

whether the aspects of the ’case or controversy^ requirement of Article HI of the

federal Constitution or as reflections of prudential considerations defining and

limiting the role of [the courts are threshold determinants of the propriety of judi­

cial intervention, it is the responsibility of the complainant clearly- to allege

facts demonstrating that he is the proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the

dispute and the exercise of the court's remedial powers.").

This must be done at the time the complaint is filed. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d

1214 (9th, 2000)("Standing...is to be determined as of the time the complaint is fi­

led."); Skaff v. feridieh N. Am. Beverly Jills, LLC, 506 F.3d 832 , 838 (.9th, 2007)

("The existence of standing turns on the facts as they existed at the time the plain­

tiff filed the complaint."); See also Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561; See also Sierra Nev,

Transp., Inc, v. Nev.-,Transp. Auth., U.S. App LEXIS. 27677 (9th, 2023).

"Courts do not have jurisdiction over cases prosecuted in the name of the

United States unless they are,prosecuted by a US Attorney...The courts would not

accept for filing, a complaint which had not been authorized by the United States

Attorney." U.S, v. Bryson, 434 F.Supp 986 (1977)/ See also 28 USC §547, and by law,

standing "must affirmatively appear on the record." steel Co. v. Citizens for Better

Env., 523 U.S. 83 (1998). A court "cannot rely on events that unfolded after the

filing of the complaint to establish...standing." Wilbur v.. Locke, 423 F.3d 1101,

1107 (9th, 2005), and' "a lack of standing is not a defect that can be cured.” Revo­

lution Eyewear Inc., U.S. Dist LEXIS 105188 (9th, 2007).

1 of 4

Without Article III Standing, a court has a mandatory duty to dismiss. Steel Co., su­

pra; See also, Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Gordon, 819 F.3d 1179 (9th, 2015)("Because the requirements of Article III were not satisfied when (the complaint was

filed], the district court was obliged to dismiss."); See also Raines v. Byrd, 117

SCt..2312 (1977)("The limitations imposed by Article III may not be swept aside for

the sake of convenience and efficiency."); See also Hollingsworth, 133 SCt. at 2659.

GROUND I

WHTETHER ANYONE OTHER THAN A

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, CAN FILE CHARGES

IN A FEDERAL COURT

On 7/30/2019, when case No. 3:19-cr-00356 was filed by complaint No. 3:19-mj00134, U.S. Attorney, Natalie K. Wright, did not file a complaint, presentment, indi­

ctment, charging instrument, or any other document whatever, never invoked the power

of the court, and, as a result, failed to establish a ’case or controversy* under

Article III and thus a lack of Article III Standing. Revolution Eyewear, Steel Co.,

Wilbur, Bryson, Lujan, White,,,.Supra.

As proof of fact, in her response to Petitioner’s §2255, Wright notes that Pe­

titioner "was charged by criminal complaint" that was filed by "FBI Task Force Offi­

cer Cheryl Banks." (ECF No. l)(Atta. #1). Wright makes Petitioner's point here. On

7/30/2019, Banks commenced a Federal prosecution against Petitioner without the autho­

rization of the U.S. Attorney. Bryson , supra. "Task Force Officers do not file

charges or otherwise control prosecution, their status as federal agents...does not

implicate the United States as a sovereign." U.S, v, Davis, 906 F.2d 829 (2nd, 1990);

U.S, v. Morfin-Diaz, 566 Fed Appx 557 (9th, 2014)("The complaint charged defendant

with two counts.").

”[T]he authority to bring federal charges was vested solely in the United Sta­

tes Attorney." Davis, supra. "While Task Force Officers may choose to report their

evidence initially to one prosecutor, that is not the same as initiating a prosecu­

tion. Filing charges remains a sovereign decision within the discretionary authority

of.,the United States Attorney with respect to federal court." Id.

On the other hand, in the affidavit attached to the criminal complaint (Atta#2)

Banks admits to being employed by the City of Hillsboro Police Department and that

she has been a member of a Task Force with the FBI since October 2002 but makes no

reference to the authority she has in filing criminal charges. According to Title 5

USC §3372(a)(2) a task force officer’s appointment is limited to two (2) years with

the possibility for a one time extension by the head of the agency of an additional

two (2) years, which does not appear on the record.

2 of 4

REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

Because Banks was not a United States Attorney under 28 USC §547', nor an emplo­

yee of the United States or any agency or office there of, and her term as a Task

Force officer had expired by nearly 15 years, She could not meet the requirements of

establishing Article ill Standing. Without Banks’ standing and because the United

States Attorney did not initiate Prosecution on the date the complaint was filed by

Banks on 7/30/2019, the only date in question, Case No. 3:19-cr-00356 must be dismiss­

ed for lack of Article III Standing and lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction.

I

Good Cause/Timely Filing

Because the Sentencing COurt has failed to make an Article III Standing deter­

mination on Complaint'no 3:19-ntf-00134, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Garland, 994

F.3d 962 (9th, 2021)(Courts "have an independent obligation to determine [their]

jurisdiction under Article HI.”) Petitioner has a good cause showing that this Peti­

tion may be filed and!the issue raised at any time. Sebelius v. Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr.,

133>SCt. 817, 184 (2013)("0bjections to a tribunal's jurisdiction can be raised at

any timel")-; U.S, v. Hayes, 115 SCt. 2431 (1995)("[T]he jurisdictional issue of stan­

ding can be raised at any time and can not be waived.").

CONCLUSION

Petitioner asks this court to vacate the lower court and dismiss case No. 3:19cr-00356 or alternatively remand with instructions to make an Article -HI Standing

determination in the complaint 3s19-mj-00134 filed on 7/30/2019.

3 of 4