Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Djavon Holland, Petitioner v. United States

original

FILED

No.

DEC 3 1 2025

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURTuF

In The

>

Supreme Court of the United States

DJAVON HOLLAND

Petitioner(s)

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Respondent(s)-

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

TO THE THIRD CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

DJAVON HOLLAND 74124-509

FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

LORETTO LOW

POST OFFICE BOX 1000

CRESSON, PENNSYLVANIA 16630

QUESTION PRESENTED

1. ) Whether the Sixth Amendment, Due Process, and Fundamentd:l^^^^|e^|

Clause, require that a criminal appellant be afforded a meaningful,

timely opportunity to review any appellate brief proposed to be filed

on his behalf before the brief is filed?

2. ) Whether filing an opening brief, without first ensuring that appellate

counsel gave the defendant an adequate and informed opportunity to

review the brief and decide whether to file the brief or proceed

pro se violates fundamental fairness, due process, and the Sixth

Amendment of the United States Constitution?

3. ) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1654 gives a defendant the right to proceed

pro se on direct appeal?

4. ) Whether the Third Circuit's delay in deciding whether Mr. Holland

shall proceed pro se is causing an unnecessary delay, prejudice,

and irreparable harm, in violation of fundamental fairness, and

the due process clause of the United States Constitution?

I.

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

judgement is the subject of this petition is as follows:

Petitioner: Djavon Holland

Respondent: United States Of America

RELATED CASES

Case Name: United States v. Djavon Holland

Case Number: 3:21-cr-OO871-RK

Case Name: United States v. Djavon Holland

Case Number: 25-1019

II.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ORDERS AND OPINIONS..................................

‘............................ ".............. Pg*1

JURISDICTION........

• ...... . ....... \.... Pg-2

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

Pg.3

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

Pg‘4

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

Pg’6

CONCLUSION............. .........*.......

Pg-11

INDEX TO APPENDLCE

APPENDIX A.

1. Denial to Mr. Holland’s motion for leave to file supplemental

brief...................... ..............................

2. United States v. Turner,

APPX' 1.

APPX .....

2.

677 F.3d 570 (3d Cir. 2012)......

3. November 7, 2025 letter from Public Defender........ .............

APPX 3.

4. November 12, 2025 letter from Mr. Holland to Public Defender......

APPX 5.

5. Mr. Holland's motion to proceed pro ...................... • - -....

APPX 6.

6. November 17, 2025 letter from-Mr. Holland to Pub. Defender........

APPX 14.

7. November 6, 2025 letter from Mr. Holland to 3d Circuit..... ......

APPX 16.

8. November 24, 2025 letter from Pub. defender to Mr. Holland.... .

APPX 17.

9. Public Defender's motion to withdraw as counsel.................. . APPX 18.

J

10. November 26, 2025 Third Circuit decision to refer

Mr. Holland's submissions to the merits panel...................

APPX 23.

11. Febuarv 13, 2026 Justice Alito s denial of

,

Mr. Holland's application for a stay in 3d Circuit Proceedings....

a-dtdv ok

12. December 1. 2025 letter from public defender............

APPX 25<

13. December 29, 2025 decision from 3d Circuit to take no action on

Mr. Holland's motion to stay appeal pending decision on Mr. Holland^s^

motion to proceed prose.... ........................... .........

14. Third Circuit ECF Docket Sheet........................

••

15. March 9, 2026 letter from Mr., Holland to Pub. defender...........

APPX 97

APPX 31

16. March 10, 2026 letter from Mr. Holland to

Appx

Assistant Attorney General.................... .... ..............

III.

INDEX TO APPENDICE

_p^E_

APPENDS A.

17. October 29, 2025, filed motion for bail pending appeal........ APPX 34.

18. Motion to Unseal Ex Parte transcripts and Related Docket Entries.. APPX 40.

19. October 29, 2025 filed motion for leave to file an extended

page brief........................ ;.........

APPX 43.

20. October 28, 2025 filed motion to file a supplemental brief...... APPX 46.

21. Up To 36 Pages of Mr. Holland's 117page direct appeal brief... APPX 64.

22

i'i

IV.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

PAGE NUMBER

CASES

1. United States v. Turner,

677 F.3d 570 (3d Cir. 2012)

6, 9,

2. Price v. Johnson,

334 U.S. 266 (1948)

3. Greenlaw v. United States,

554 U.S. 237 (2008)

4. Arizona v. California.

530 U.S. 392 (2000)

6, 9,

.....

......... 7 ,

...............

7,

5. McKaskle v. Wiggins,

465 U.S. 168 (1984)

...

6. Jones v. Barnes,

463 U.S. 745 (1983)

..........................

7. Faretta v. California,

422 U.S. 806 (1975)

7,

7,

8, 9,

............

8. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984)

....................... -

8,

9. Gonzalez-Lopez,

548 U.S. 140 (2006)

8,

...

10. Smith v. Robbins,

528 U.S. 529 (2000)

.................... 8,

11. Martinez v. Court of Appeals of Cal.,

528 U.S. 152 (2000).........

STATUTES AND RULES

%

PAGE NUMBER

1. Third Circuit L.A.R. 31.3

2. Third Circuit L.A.R. 31.5

.....................

3. 28 U.S.C. § 16545

4. Sup.Ct.R.11

.............. ...

................

4,

4, 6, 7, 9, 10,

10, 11,

5. Sup.Ct.R.23

11,

6. 28 U.S.C. § 2255

7,

V.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner, Mr. Holland, respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari

before judgement to review the order of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit (No. 25-1019) be issued by theiHonorablelJustice

Alito, to review the following:

OPINIONS AND ORDERS

The Third Circuit's November 5, 2025 Order denying petitioner's

motion to file a pro se supplemental brief is attatched to this motion, as

APPX 1.

Mr. Holland's November 6, 2025 letter

is APPX 16.

Mr. Holland's November 12, 2025 letter is APPX APPX 5.

Mr. Holland's motion to appoint New Counselk or Proceed Pro se is

attatched to this motion as APPX 6.

Appellant Counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel is attatched as

APPX 18.

Appeal counsel's letter informing Mr. Holland that the courts

recieved the motions but did not make a decision. APPX 25

United States Court of Appeals notice that Mr. Holland's pro se

filings to proceed pro se has been sent to the merits panel. APPX 23.

United States Court of Appeals

Ruling not to take action on

Mr. Holland's motion to stay the appeal pending

decision on appellant's

motion to proceed pro se. APPX 26.

Justice Alito's denial to stay the proceedings pending the decision

of this Sup.Ct.R. 11 motion. APPX 24.

1.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Court has Jurisdiction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254.

This motion is filed in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 11.

2.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVES

1. ) U.S. Const. Amend. 5th

2. ) U.S.Const. Amend. .6th

3. ), U.S. Const. Amend. 14th

4. ) 28 U.S.C. § 1654 "

3.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On October 29, 2025, petitioner Djavon Holland filed a motion in the

Third Circuit seeking permission either to (a) proceed pro se for the

presentation of appellate arguments within his filed 117 page brief o.r,

(b) filed a pro se supplemental brief in addition to any brief filed by

appointed counsel. (See Appeal Docket #93 & #94). On the same day'of

October 29, 2025 appointed counsel (The Federal Public Defender) filed the

opening brief on the merits., on behalf of Mr. Holland without giving

Mr. Holland a chance to review the brief prior to them filing it. On

November 5, 2025, the Third Circuit denied Mr. Holland's motion to file

a pro se supplemental brief and cited 3d Cir. L.A.R. 31.3 and United

States v. Turner, 677 F.3d 570 (3d Cir. 2012), for the proposition that,

except in Anders cases, parties represented by counsel may not file pro

se briefs. The Third Circuit's order further stated that any pro se brief

would be forwarded to counsel under L.A.K. 31.5 and Turner and directed

counsel to review Turner regarding obligations to pro se arguments.

On November 12, 2025 Mr. Holland asked counsel to fire herself so

that I could proceed pro se. Mr. Holland also wrote the Third Circuit,

requesting them to fire my appeal counsel and envoke my statutory right

to plead my own cause in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1654. (See attatched

letters.

On November 26, 2025, the Third Circuit referred Mr. Holland's

motions to the merits panel. (See Appeal .Docket #107).

On Febuary 13, 2026 The Honorable Justice Alito denied my motion to

stay the proceeding until my rule 11 motion was decided. Mr. Holland

asked Justice Sotomayor to reconsider .the motion, due to the Third Circuit's

refusal to answer my motions causing an irreparable harm to my appeal by

not being answered.

'

In March of 202.6, Mr. Holland filed a writ of Mandamus to Justice

Jackson asking for the Court to compel the Third Circuit to answer my

4.

pro se bail motion and motion to proceed pro se. Mr. Holland also asked

for the Attorney general to be compelled to protect my constitutional

rights that are being violated, in accordance with her ministerial duties.

5.

REASON FOR GRANTING THE APPLICATION

This case presents urgent and fundamental constitutional questions

about fundamental fairness, due process, and ineffective assistance of

counsel on direct appeal.

28 U.S.C. § 1654 gives an appellant a statutory right to conduct his

own case personally. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; See also Price v. Johnson,

334 U.S. 266 (1948). Where appointed counsel files an opening brief

without first giving the client a real opportunity to decide whether to

waive counsel, and proceed pro se, 28 U.S.C. § 1654 is effectively nullified,

and the appellant's due process rights are violated due to appellate

counsel's ineffectiveness.

The Third Circuit's reliance on Turner and local rule 31.3 to deny

Mr. Holland's request, while doctrinally defensible as a rule about filing

pro se briefs where counsel represents a party, does not address the

constitutional imperative that an appellant have an opportunity to choose

self representation before counsel's filing forecloses that choice. Turner

and L.A.R. 31.3 govern whether a represented party may file pro se briefs

once counsel has filed. They do notj and cannot logically, authorize

courts or counsel to preemptively file briefs without first ensuring the

appellate have an opportunity to make an knowing, voluntary, and

intelligent decision to waive counsel.

The Third Circuit's order explicitly acknowledges that counsel had

already filed a brief before providing Mr. Holland a meaningful chance

to review and decide how to proceed. Counsel's filing functions as a de

facto waiver of issues that the defendant might have chosen to press or

preserved if allowed to proceed pro se, or to file a supplemental brief.

This procedural posture presents a live constitutional deprivation. The

rule that federal courts do not consider waived arguments is premised on

the adversarial nature of our system of justice; that litigants, not the

6.

courts, choose the facts and arguments to present. Greenlaw v. United

States, 554 U.S. 237, 244, 128 S.Ct. 2559, 171 L. Ed. 2d 399 (2008);

Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 413, 120 S. Ct. 2304, 147 L.Ed. 2d

347 (2000), (observing that the principle of party presentation is basic

to our system of justice). Counsel's failure to give Mr. Holland a fair

opportunity to review their brief prior to them filing it, creates an

irrepairable harm and prejudice to Mr. Holland that cannot be properly

remedied. All of Mr. Holland's facts and claims that he wished to present

on appeal would forever be waived and barred from being heard in any other

proceeding, and a § 2255 motion has strenuously high bars that must be

satisfied before Mr. Holland would be able to have his claim heard on

the merits.

The right to be heard and to make fundamental choices about the

presentation of one's case is reinforced by congrewssional intent codified

in 28 U.S.C. § 1654, the Due Process Clause of the United States

Constitution, principles expressed in Mckaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168

(1984), and the concerns voiced in Justice Brennan's and Justice Marshall s

dissents in appellate representation context. McKaskle v. Wiggins,

recognizes that when a defendant proceeds pro se, the court must take care

to preserve the defendant's control over the case. By parity, courts must

also ensure that represented defendants who seek to proceed pro se

actually have the chance to do so before counsel's filings moot that right.

Justice Brennan's dissent in Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983)

cautions against permitting counsel's decisions to extinguish the client s

voice. Justice Brennan stated that "clients, if they wish, are capable

of making informed judgements about which issues to appeal, and when

they exercise their prerogative their choices should be respected.

Justice Brennan also asked a question in the Jones case, of whether the

attorney or client should have the ultimate authority to decide which

7.

nonfrivolous issues should be presented on appeal? He also quoted

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), to emphasize, "to force a

lawyer on a defendant can only lead him to believe that the law contrieves

against him." Justice Brennan acknowledged that indigent clients like

myself often mistrust lawyers appointed to represent them. In the Jones

case which was decided in 1983, Justice Brennan said "In the end, what

the court hopes to gain in effectiveness of appellate representation by

the rule it imposes today may well be lost to decreased effectiveness in

other areas of representation. In the year 2026 his warning to the nation

is ringing true and is ripe for this court to adjudicate and remedy.

Justice Marshall's dissent in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668 (1984) similarly highlights the dangers of insulating strategic choices

from the client. In the Strickland case Justice Marshall reasoned that

the Strickland standard will do more hurt in the assistance of counsel

than help. Even in Justice Alito's dissenting opinion in United States v.

Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) favors a quality analysis of a lawyers

performance to take the place of the;reasonable standard set.forth in the

Strickland case. As Justice Marshall reasoned in the Strickland case, "to

tell a lawyer to be reasonable is to tell them nothing at all." The

concerns of Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall are squarely implicated

in Mr. Holland's case where appellate counsel filed their opening brief

without affording Mr. Holland a true opportunity to review the filing of

the arguments presented on his behalf and determine whether he was satisfied

with what was being filed on his behalf.

The Sixth Amendment and Due Process applies to appellate counsel.

Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 529 (2000). Due process and fundamental fairness

requires an appellate counsel to give a client an opportunity to review

their opening brief prior to filing it. This will assure that a clienttis

satisfied with the issues being filed on his behalf and also assure that

8.

the client is aware that whatever issues are not in the filing are being

forfieted and waived. Counsel in Mr. Holland's case did not give him an

opportunity to review the brief because they knew that when they showed

Mr. Holland a brief that he was not satisfied with, he would elect to proceed

pro se in order to have all his claims heard and none of his rights or

claims forfeited or waived.

The Third Circuit stated in the Turner case that "We caution that a motion

to discharge appellate counsel after counsel has filed a brief is likely

to be denied. See Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., 528 U.S. 152, 163,

120 S.Ct. 684, 145 L.Ed. 2d 597 (2000) (no right to self representation

on appeal)." But I think that the Third Circuit misunderstands the legal

philosophy and ruling of the Supreme Court Martinez case. In the Martinez

case, the Supreme Court did not say that there is no right to self

representation on appeal. That case says that a state appellate cannot be

deprived of a federal constitutional right to represent himself on appeal.

In that case he used Faretta v. California case, and the.6th Amendment of

the United States Constitution. In Mr. Holland's case, Mr. Holland is

saying that counsel violated Due process by filing their brief without

giving me a fair opportunity to review their brief prior to them filing it,

and there is a statutory right to self representation codified in 28

U.S.C. § 1654 that allows a person to personally plead his cause in all

courts of the United States, including the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Turner case nor the Supreme Court Martinez case that the Third Circuit

quotes within the Turner case supports their conclusion of there being no

right to self representation on appeal. Price v. Johnson, 334 U.S. 266

(1948) acknowledges a defendants right to plead his cause in all courts

of the United States.

The procedural facts here shows prejudice and renders subsequent

review inadequate unless this court intervenes before final disposition.

9.

Mr. Holland sought leave to proceed pro se or to file a supplemental brief

on October 29, 2025. Counsel filed their brief on the same day. After filing

their brief counsel told Mr. Holland to file a motion to go pro se if he

was unsatisfied with the brief they filed. (They told me this over a phone

call on October 29, 2025 without ever showing roe the final brief they filed.)

The Third Cirucit denied Mr. Holland’s pro se requsted on November 5, 2025.

Counsel never afforded Mr. Holland a fair opportunity to review their brief

before filing it. Counsel for Mr. Holland foreclosed Mr. Holland's ability

to request dismissal of counsel, and to exercise his statutory right to

proceed pro se in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1654.

Once counsel's brief is filed and the appeal proceeds, issues that

were not raised will be deemed waived for appellate purposes and for

28 U.S.C. § 2255 purposes. The harm is irreparable and after the fact

restoration of the right to self representation cannot remedy the loss of

the opportunity to control what was presented and preserved at the critical

stage of the appeal. This Court's intervention before judgement is

warranted because the ordinary appellate process has not and will not

adequately protect Mr./Holland's statutory right to self representation

on appeal and Mr. Holland's due process rights that are guarenteed by the

United States Constitution.

Certiorari before judgement is appropriate where immediate review is

necessary to prevent harm that cannot be remedied after final judgement.

See Sup. Ct. R. 11. If the Third Circuit's November 5, 2025 order is allowed

to stand and the appeal proceeds under counsel's brief, Mr. Holland s

ability to make the fundamental choice about self representation, and to

determine what claims and issues he personally wishes to present, will be

foreclosed in ways that cannot be undone by later review.

10.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Holland respectfully request for

Justice Alito and this Honorable Court to grant leave to file a Writ of

Certiorari before Judgement in the Third Circuit in accordance with Supreme

Court Rule 11.

Respectfully Submitted,

Djavon Hollandj;#74124-509

Federal Correctional Institution

Loretto Low

Post Office Box 1000

Cresson, Pennsylvania 16630

11.