# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Frost v. United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386005_0855%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 1999
- **Citation:** 527 U.S. 1023

## Text

Supreme Court, U.S.
FILED

«9B AST way 201099

idk CLERK

In The
Supreme Court of the United States

BILLY DALTON FROST,

Petitioner,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Fourth Circuit

Douc tas A. TRANT
Counsel of Record
900 S. Gay Street
Suite 1502
Knoxville, TN 37902
(423) 525-7980

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO., (800) 22
OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831

II.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN NOT
REOPENING THE MATTER BASED ON NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WHEN THE PETITIONER
CLEARLY PRODUCED NEWLY DISCOVERED EVI-
DENCE WHICH WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY
REDUCE HIS SENTENCE.

WHETHER THE MOTION TO REOPEN SHOULD BE
GRANTED WITH THE COURT CONSIDERING SUP-
PRESSION OF EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED COCON-
SPIRATORS’ TESTIMONY WHEN SUCH
TESTIMONY HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY THE GOV-
ERNMENT THROUGH GRANTING SENTENCE
REDUCTIONS TO THE WITNESSES WHICH WERE
THINGS OF VALUE UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 201(c).

il

LIST OF ALL PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

The following is a list of all parties to the proceeding
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit whose judgment is sought to be reviewed in this
case:

United States of America

Billy Dalton Frost

ill

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ........... i
LIST OF ALL PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING... ii
SOMME MP MME ERIN bo Wo oc owe CB Ke Kb Cor ivk on os iii
ROME Ge PUG RIEU bi sivok od Udo obec ks a iv
IEE MERER oscte tc lececs Vee ccee te pee 1
SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION................. 1
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS CONSTRUED.... 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.........0..c5005. Te gens |
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.....................6- 2
PRE EE ow hee aes Clr 0k hose Oo MLR bn 3
SLE whe vo Codec cles aks v es toe pcan +

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page
Cases Crrep:
United States v. Singleton, D.C. No. 96-10054-05-
POT (30th Coz: Jerky 1, T9906) ccs ces sestecavecsess 2, 4
Sratutes Crrep:
1B UGS BS Be ain ce Scciccecsakewes rn deere 1, 4
28 USC: © Z2S6 6. ce vccvccvivens cane cieens teens

OPINIONS BELOW

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit affirmed the District Court on December 15, 1998,
and is unpublished and has been reproduced in the
Appendix at 2a-3a. The Order from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying the
petition for rehearing was denied on March 8, 1999, and
is unpublished and has been reproduced in the Appendix
at la.

SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit was filed on March 8, 1999. This
Petition for Writ of Certiorari is filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1254.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS CONSTRUED
28 U.S.C. § 2255

18 U.S.C. § 201(c)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On March 17, 1998, the Petitioner filed a motion to
reopen his petition to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 or, in the alternative, motion for delayed
appeal. On March 20, 1998, the District Court denied his
motion. On March 31, 1998, the Petitioner filed his notice

of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit. On July 14, 1998, he submitted his recent
authority, the case of United States v. Singleton, D.C. No.
96-10054-05-FGT (10th Cir. July 1, 1998), from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which has
since been vacated and reversed by an en banc decision
that Petitioner would rely on the same argument before
the Supreme Court. On December 15, 1998, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed
the District Court. (Appendix at 2a-3a). On December 30,
1998, the Petitioner filed his petition to rehear. On March
8, 1999, the Petitioner’s petition to rehear was denied.
(Appendix at la). |

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

It is certainly appropriate for the District Court to
reopen a case when evidence is brought before it which
substantially shows that a Petitioner is innocent of nearly
all the relevant conduct used by the Court in determining
what his sentence should be.

It is also important for the District Court to consider
whether witnesses against the Defendant testified in
return for a thing of value, that is a sentence reduction
given to said witnesses by the government in exchange
for their testimony.

ARGUMENT

I. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN
NOT REOPENING THE MATTER BASED ON
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WHEN THE
PETITIONER CLEARLY PRODUCED NEWLY DIS-
COVERED EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUB-
STANTIALLY REDUCE HIS SENTENCE.

The Petitioner came into possession of a taped con-
versation of David Ruckart after the petition to vacate his
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 had been denied.
From that conversation ample evidence could be pre-
sented that Mr. Frost was a minor player in this alleged
conspiracy and certainly should have far less cocaine
attributed to him than what he was sentenced to. He
should have had, at worst, been attributed to a minimal
role in the conspiracy. He certainly should have been held
accountable for less than five kilograms of cocaine.

In addition, the Court relied on information concern-
ing Larry Roscoe, who gave a sworn statement that Bill
Frost had nothing to do with any cocaine and that Mr.
Roscoe told Agents Taylor and Assistant United States
Attorney Ken Bell that Mr. Frost had nothing to do with
any cocaine in his presence. (Appendix at 4a).

Il. WHETHER THE MOTION TO REOPEN SHOULD
BE GRANTED WITH THE COURT CONSIDERING
SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED
COCONSPIRATORS’ TESTIMONY WHEN SUCH
TESTIMONY HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY THE
GOVERNMENT THROUGH GRANTING SEN-
TENCE REDUCTIONS TO THE WITNESSES
WHICH WERE THINGS OF VALUE UNDER 18
U.S.C. § 201(c).

The Petitioner would ask this Court to consider as
well whether 18 U.S.C. § 201(c) prohibits prosecutors for
the government for giving things of value, that is sen-
tence reductions in exchange for the testimony of wit-
nesses. The Petitioner would rely on the very sound
reasoning and judgment of the original panel of the Tenth
Circuit in United States v. Singleton which was vacated
and reversed by the Court en banc, but is the sound
reasoning upon which 18 U.S.C. § 201(c) should be inter-
preted.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully sub-
mitted that the Petition for Writ Certiorari should be
granted.

Doucias A. TRANT
Counsel of Record

900 S. Gay Street

Suite 1502

Knoxville, TN 37902
(423) 525-7980

APPENDIX

nl
a a
Ay i
id

ie

la

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

FILED
March 8, 1999

No. 98-6479
CR-92-253
CA-95-265-3-P

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
BILLY DALTON FROST
Defendant - Appellant

ORDER

The appellant has filed a petition for rehearing.

The Court denies the petition for rehearing.

For the Court,

/s/ Patricia S. Connor
CLERK

—

2a

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6479

UNITED STATES CF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BILLY DALTON FROST,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert

D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-253, CA-95-265-3-
P)

Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: December 15,
1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas A. Trant, TRANT & ASSOCIATES, Knoxville,
Tennessee, for Appellant. Kenneth Davis Bell, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Car-
olina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this
circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Billy Frost appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current
version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)),
and his application for a writ of Audita Querela under 28
U.S.C. § 1651 (1994). We have reviewed the record and
the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. United States v. Frost, Nos. CR-92-253; CA-95-265-3-
P (W.D.N.C. Mar. 23, 1998). We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4a

To whom it may concern:

It has come to my attention that it has been said that I
sold Bill Frost 2 kilos of cocaine. I took United States
Customs Agent Ron Fay and United States Ken Bell in a
sworn statement that Bill Frost went into the other room
when he come into our home. I never saw him buy any
drugs from anybody. I never at any time sold Bill Frost
anything.

Larry Roscoe
6/10/95

BEFORE ME APPEARED LARRY ROSCOE, THIS 10TH
DAY OF JUNE, 1995, AND WHO SIGNED THE ABOVE
STATEMENT.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF IREDELL

/s/ Kay Helms |
NOTARY

[SEAL]

Mc Commission Expires: 2/1/96

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386005_0855%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.