Prologue — Triplett v. United States

() Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

05-196 AUG 5 - 2003

No. 05- __—

OPAC LO TAL CLE

3n the

Supreme Court of the United States

Joun F. TRIPLETT,

Petitioner,

Vv.

UnireD STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

WILMER PARKER

Counsel of Record

GILLEN Parker & WitHers, LLC

One Securities CENTRE

Surre 1050

3490 Piepmont Roap, N.E.

ATLANTA, GA 30305

(404) 842-9700

———

Becker Gallagher Legal Publishing, Inc. 800.890.5001

1.

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’

procedural bar rule, as applied, is contrary to this Court’s

rule that new rules for the conduct of criminal

prosecutions must be applied to all cases pending on direct

review, or not yet final, the holdings of all other circuit

courts of appeals, the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure and the purposes of the Sentencing Reform

Act?

. Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’

procedural bar rule, as applied, justifies its refusal to

apply the holdings of this Court’s decision in United

States v. Booker, _U.S. __, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005),

and this Court’s order in Triplett v. United States, 125

S.Ct. 994 (2005) (Mem.), granting Petitioner's petition

for certiorari, vacating the prior judgment in Petitioner's

case, and remanding to the Eleventh Circuit for further

- consideration in light of Booker?

Whether this Court should grant certiorari to resolve a

split among the courts of appeals regarding how plain

error pursuant to United States v. Booker should be

treated?

ii

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Petitioner John F. Triplett is an interested party to the

proceedings herein. :

Respondent is the United States of America.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .........

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ............. ii

OD © 6 Sarees ceed revenues iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................. vi

REE OLE TEP ETE I

STATEMENT OF BASIS FOR JURISDICTION IN

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ....... i

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES

AND FEDERAL RULES INVOLVED INCASE .... 1

STATEMENT OF THECASE ................ 3

i rn <2 «3 uk wwe 6 bah wawaen 3

> No wc aeeinch doses tends 6

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ...... 8

A. This Court should grant the petition to

determine whether the Eleventh Circuit Court

of Appeals’ procedural bar rule, as applied, is

contrary to this Court’s rule that new riles for

the conduct of criminal prosecutions inust be

applied to all cases pending on direct review,

or not yet final, the holdings of all other

circuit courts of appeals, the Federal Rules of

iv

Criminal Procedure and the purposes of the

Semoncemg Reform Act. ... cc cccccescns 8

B. This Court should grant the petition to

determine whether the Eleventh Circuit Court

of Appeals’ procedural bar rule, as applied,

justifies its refusal to apply the holdings of this

Court’s decision in United States v. Booker,

__ US. __, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), and this

Court’s order in Triplett v. United States, 125

S.Ct. 994 (2005) (Mem.), granting Petitioner’s

petition for certiorari, vacating the prior

judgment in Petitioner’s case, and remanding

to the Eleventh Circuit for further

consideration in light of Booker. ........... 19

C. This Court should grant the petition to resolve

a split among the courts of appeals regarding

how plain error pursuant to United States v.

Booker thowid be treated. 2... ccc cccces 23

UL AN 6-5 cctts ee eeeeevisercacnee 26

APPENDIX

Appendix A- 5/10/05 11" Circuit Opinion ....... la

Appendix B- 4/15/05 Letter Brief............. 4a

Appendix C- 4/5/05 Memorandum ........... 17a

Appendix D- 1/24/05 Supreme Court Opinion ... 19a

Appendix E- 4/26/04 11" Circuit Opinion ...... 20a

Vv

Appendix F- 2/25/04 11° Circuit Opinion ...... 22a

Appendix G- 7/31/03 District Court Judgment ... 27a

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States,

SEE og ocd due cons wales es ll

Apprendi v. New Jersey,

he nn 3 «snd sawed ae ews 11, 12, 15

Blakely v. Washington,

ts = {etee'

124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) ....... 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19

Edwards v. Arizona,

rs i nets 10

Griffith v. Kentucky,

479 U.S. 314 (1987) ........ 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 21

Johnson v. Zerbst,

Seas GED veo vee duwadeeevdn ena ll

Lawrence on Behalf of Lawrence v. Chater,

Sa Dern... 6 os 6ewes cae heen 20, 21

Shea v. Louisiana,

Ge SE 5A ecco eeeb bau eeseawes 10

Stutson v. United States,

aah SUED 6a wescésaseeent 20, 21, 22

Teague v. Lane,

GPUS. FEB GGGD c cccccccccscesevccees 9

Vii

Cas

Triplett v. United States,

__ U.S __. 125 S.Ct. 994 (2005) (Mem.)

United States v. Ameline,

409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005)..........

United States v. Ameline,

No. 02-30326, 2005 WL 1291977

ie Sf 0 re pees

United States v. Antonakopoulos,

399 F.3d 6B (ist Cig. 2005) ......---.--

United States v. Ardley,

242 F.3d 989 (llth Cir.2001) ..........

United States v. Ardley,

273 F.3d 991 (11th Cir. 2001)..........

United States v. Banks,

No. 03-00196, 2005 WL 1350658

4). [= A 5 & ee ee

United States v. Booker,

__ ee 5 See Se boa ceees

United States v. Coles,

403 F.3d 764 (D.C.Cir. 2005) .........

United States v. Cotton,

Sa Ga a oe cenkes tne

. 7,8, 19

vill

Cases

United States v. Crosby,

397 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2005) .......... 11, 24, 25

United States v. Davis,

a Ge Ce LA, ED ccc cc cececcececes 24

United States v. Dockery,

401 F.3d 1261 (llth Cir.2005) .............. 8

United States v. Hauk,

412 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2005) .............. 24

United States v. Higdon,

No. 03-14365, 2005 WL 1677544

Ul BD ee ee 9,12

United States v. Hughes,

401 F.3d 540 (4thCir. 2005) ...........245. 24

United States v. Johnson,

CEU ceccccocccccccecoeeee 21

United States v. Lang,

405 F.3d 1060 (10th Cir. 2005)... 2.2.2... 2... 12

United States v. Levy,

391 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2004) . . 9, 10, 11, 16,17, 19

United States v. Levy,

No. 0601-17133, 2005 WL 1620719

(11th Cir. July 12, 2005) ..............24.. 19

ix

Cases

United States v. McDaniel,

398 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2005) ............ 12, 15

United States v. Milan,

398 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2005) ............... 14

United States v. Miller,

" € & > , «- 3 | ee il

United States v. Mohammed,

No. 01-11738, 2005 WL 1412068

I SD ko a ie eis on 22

United States v. Morales,

No. 03-16108, 2005 WL 1412056

a ge deen a od wae 22

United States v. Nieves-Bogado,

No. 04-20019, 2005 WL 1370248

ORME 6.6-66-6 sceusKevnber 22

United States v. Olano,

Se ae CD be ake cde chee sen 11, 15, 15

United States v. Oliver,

Be ee I i os de a te eal a 24

United States v. Paladino,

Ge ce Ge a Oe oo @ 6 es ob HO oe ee 24

United States v. Pirani,

Sap aes See Ge GLE ck cecases voesdees 25

Cases

United States v. Rivas,

132 Fed.Appx. 818 (11th Cir. 2005) .......... 22

United States v. Rodriguez,

398 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) ........... 24, 24

United States v. Rodriguez-Ceballos,

407 F.3d 937, 941 (8th Cir. 2005) ............ 24

United States v. Smith,

No. 03-15299, 2005 WL 1662128

ec CM bcos sensoecseveces 22

United States v. Stines,

Da Pu Sea BED wecceccowcccence« 16

United States v. Triplett,

128 Fed. Appx. 105, 106 (11th Cir. 2005) ....... 10

United States v. Vanorden,

No. 03-11083, 2005 WL 1531151

(11th Cir. June 30, 2005) ....... 8, 11, 16, 21, 22

United States v. Villegas,

SOU FB See GN Ge BOUND ccc eccccccceces 24

United States v. Walker,

Nos. 02-2168, 03-1528, 2005 WL 1503888

RC ie ee ea ng eee eas 12

United States v. Washington,

Fee Pe Fe RU. BOD ce cc cece ccsveees 12

4

Constitutional Provisions

ane te he Oe hres 1

Statutes

i a ie ele he ke we bee Oo 6

I as AD os oS ae ad eka 6

De ere er ea

Tee a ee ee walk ate 6

I oe i oe ase ylatis 2, 13

Ce a ay dia aie 2, 20

I er ee ea ak ]

Federal Rules

IE co o's Sold Gs be be se awe re ee 2

NEES Sg ee Ra ce eS on aL aE aie.

Other Authorities

Kate Stith & Jose A. Cabranes,

Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines

in the Federal Courts, 104 (1998) ............ 13