Prologue — York v. United States (No. 05-1503)

Supreme: aurt 61S.

-5i- 4

)

No.

O5150 7°" 2 > 9K

OFFICE OF THE Guchn,

In The

Supreme Court of the Anited States

*

DWIGHT D. YORK,

Petitioner,

VS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Eleventh Circuit

4

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

o

ROBERT R. BRYAN

Counsel of Record

LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT R. BRYAN

2088 Union Street, Suite 4

San Francisco, California 94123-4117

Telephone: (415) 292-2400

Facsimile: (415) 292-4878

E-mail: RobertRBryan@aol.com

Attorney for Petitioner

Dwight D. York

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO (800) 225-6964

OR CALL COLLECT (402! 342-2331

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

I.

Whether the refusal of a trial court to sever disparate

counts that are prejudicially intertwined in an indictment

is an abridgement of the right to due process of law and a

fair trial under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments?

II.

Whether permitting the government to proceed to

trial on an indictment returned by a grand jury selected

from a judicially recognized tainted jury pool renders the

proceedings fundamentally unfair in violation of the Fifth

and Sixth Amendments? -

ITI.

Whether a defendant can be sentenced based upon

facts not reflected in the jury verdict, in contravention of

the right to a jury trial and due process of law under the

Fifth and Sixth Amendments?

IV.

Whether use of a newer version of the Federal Sen-

tencing Guidelines rather than that operative at the time

of the purported crimes, resulting in more severe penal-

ties, violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution?

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

All parties are contained in the caption of the case.

iil

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ... ..................... oo

AR PE CHIE EO Bw ivcicesdithcciterecteccossovuninsolsivioczes ili

Re Ee Fr BEE BUN ora snrciceentecdsiadadevsieccuhvanaria Vv

OPTION BLOW, on cecccvicccesctcccenses See ROAD Soe APR 1

PES EI che sp bsciinbaaxprordencospaclnuekswendedsehebiianieecss 1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVI-

rae REO GIT De Rede vinkcontobnascriteceyccdticaienchovestiundeass 2

PME TE EOE GAIN cs co sesenehievnerpprcianiuccicascesesteceos 3

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.................. 6

I. The Proceedings Involve A Question Of

Exceptional Importance Because A _ Trial

Court Must Sever Disparate Counts Where

Their Joinder Would Prejudice The Accused

In Contravention Of The Fifth And Sixth

TIN isd Ree a 6

IT.

The Proceedings Involve A Question Of

Exceptional Importance And The Court Of

Appeals Decision Failed To Follow An Opin-

ion Of This Court Because It Is Error For A

Court To Allow A Trial To Proceed On An In-

dictment Returned By A Grand Jury Selected

From A Judicially Recognized Tainted Jury

Pool, Thereby Rendering The Proceedings

Fundamentally Unfair Under The Fifth And

RE Rm nn ay

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS -— Continued

i Page

III. The Proceedings Involve A Question Of

Exceptional Importance And The Court Of

Appeals Decision Failed To Follow An Opin-

ion Of This Court, In That Petitioner Was

Sentenced To 135 Years Imprisonment Based

Upon Facts Not Reflected In The Jury Ver-

dict, In Contravention Of The Right To Due

Process Of Law And A Jury Trial Under The

Fifth And Sixth Amendments. ....................068 15

IV. The Court Of Appeals Decision Failed To

Follow An Opinion Of This Court, And The

Proceedings Involve A Question Of Excep-

tional Importance, Because The Use Of The

Newer 2002 Version Of The Federal Sentenc-

ing Guidelines Instead Of The 1993 Guide-

lines Violates The Ex Post Facto Clause......... 22

BS ks Bs ARREARS lpr gnene Magento vas tiie eae Teese P ate 24

APPENDICES

Opinion, United States Court of Appeals for the

Eleventh Circuit, in United States v. York, 428

Pee tats Oi OE iG ioeesa App. 1

Order denying rehearing en banc, United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in

United States v. York, 167 Fed.Appx. 169 (Table)

SE eg, HE oii datickantinnardassaacedcecavstpenivnladcuienced ts App. 25

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Anderson v. Fuller, 455 U.S. 1028 (1982) .......... cece eeeee ees 18

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) .. 17, 18, 19, 20

Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250

REDE SIE NREISAr EI Fite LS LESTE BS RNR ee eee DE. 12

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 :

ENT sick conpmistiiscsusstabasiciaubrvsuataceeniaisnacaehys 16, 18, 19, 20, 21

Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) .........ceeeee eee 14

Cotatar th MIE, FS TPG, BOSC TOG) vcsiavevesicesavscisisessncivescsideess 23

Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956).................. 14

Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277 (1867)...................00 22

Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002).............. 16, 17

in re Medley, 134 U.S. 160 (LEGO)... 05 icceccscesicsssssecncesenszeees 22

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) ...........0sscccssersserveeveesees 16

Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946)........... 8,12

Lindsey v. Washington, 301 U.S. 397 (1937).............. 22, 23

Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 (1987) .......... cece ceeeeee 23

Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002)................cccesseceeeeeees 18

Rooney v. North Dakota, 196 U.S. 319 (1905)........... 22

United States v. Ameline, 376 F.3d 967 (9th Cir.

SER spiadirceckctcks nical schon dacicisaghads ebiebiababubocanyGutes 19, 20, 21

United States v. Booker, 375 F.3d 508 (7th Cir.

I cco asosnsedinictes pipetenccestsaramiiniermliayeutions 16, 19, 20, 21

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) ............. 15, 21

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

United States v. Coleman, 22 F.3d 126 (7th Cir.

POTD cis teiasccncsaiincbcnian hes ebitieiiblach tecesaiad lineciasick nt nbiakdathadenbonnois 9

United States v. Croxford, 2004 W.L. 1462111 (C.D.

i i icesntcnicsipsibocigvocinanccaansseisseitectinicceuncuosntictents 20

United States v. Green, 346 F.Supp. 2d 259 (D.

ET iin tick Gace tacs ois ibeelinasanatnieittodeuiiicetaanss 20

United States v. King, 328 FSupp.2d 1276

CO Ee: File Me ccccckccoonnecisrcten cchisousenecloeimennencians 19, 20

United States v. Lamoreaux, 2004 W.L. 1557283 (D. __

isis on ctiist scents anes 20

United States v. Landgarten, 325 F.Supp. 2d 234

CUB Pe SI ikea hes cdecerelecreoeisan aaeaioibens 19

United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438 (1986) ..........0..002.. 8,12

United States v. Leach, 325 F.Supp. 2d 557 (E.D.

Pk I inci icici echbiccc seth asconersneseenenacaiaten 20

United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (1986) ................ 12

United States v. Medas, 232 FSupp.2d 436

es 0 ET ee sscociaink nticanieelaumdibipiednimendaetno gan 20

United States v. Reese, 382 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir.

| SRR RRR DPD NTS Re ro Een, BP a's PRR rare as 19

United States v. Richardson, 161 F.3d 728 (D.C.Cir.

1 RASA AR RBI SL ADORE Pee eRS IE SRN dale TRE TE Le 8

United States v. Walser, 3 F.3d 380 (11th Cir. 1993) .......... 9

United States v. Weaver, 905 F.2d 1466 (11th Cir.

BD siicicsscsiuscnicctsdae xigsinctainlicn ete alans ccna tae 9

United States v. York, 274 F.Supp. 2d 1347 (M.D.

EE :-, SEARS ee Dn Ona MAE SINC ER eT PIT oe rt eR 1, 3,7

vil

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

United States v. York, 428 F.3d 1325 (2005) ... 1, 5, 9, 13, 16

Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (1981)... eee eeeeceeeeeee 23

STATUTES

SE UF Ass Oe isithastiniesiaricedisintcenbnnriadinivian ded 4

Se Ce 0 FER vedic ip reinisidaneae 4

BG UIT AZ: GRE ex tsiivteveidcivripiosssthsntsnicadgvaninteehaelaa 4

RO UI ESS. B LG nice ccscscvscentscrccons vibe daeritndainesskabsaniapaiets 4

BS LOG i hb eicciaaminccmiguapaninaon 4

SERA. Fe 5 Gir intiotivivicstinsustinietsel tinted 4

BP Bae re PND sores racked kciesdsdnsasiasadacpseivscecenseoousiian 3, 4,6

BG er eB Pi tsissinc-cniicana naam 4

Be Or As © EE is chsdachatolstcinetcasicn dada 4

Be Ree. 9 OO RN iii biediciaticthrssriesivieioa nena 4

ZO UBC, 8 12D) .ccccciccsceccesecere SREP paren, PERCE Nata Te ATE: 2

AE Wee OKO) paki tapieosnsieviccresmads avis dana 4

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 8(a)........ 2, 4, 8, 9, 10

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 14 .............. 2, 8, 9, 10

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 21(a)...................... 11

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines

Manual, § 1B1.1(a)....... \aeudbivadsteeounidbencnadeaaies 21

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines

PORE, F BI oak hii ciincnioninnb olan 21

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines

RUE: Te SUS ios ose keen in ee ee 17

viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES -- Continued

Page

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines

Is marbbuseunbens 23, 24

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines

a gia sas cdasise caynienvencinncevaniens 23, 24

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines

INE EP Es RUE? vsvcccsivevesesoncccesnceceseesevesesses ascSuhialhos 23

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

United States Constitution

NE BN ai vcccvveveviiseusieneuseeeasévevests donsnsevedes passim

NE OUI inc cssaureecovacescacecoceasndabecvedeoedans passim

TE NB aseccc scares ii dlabveteciesesveviis vucees ad ssoveries 2, 22

1

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner, Dwight D. York, respectfully prays that a

writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment and deci-

sion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit in this case. He is appealing from the judgment

rendered May 7, 2004 in the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division, in

which he was sentenced to 1,620 months (135 years). Doc.

285. Judgment, May 7, 2004; Doc. 286, Restitution Order

($566,066.00), May 7, 2004. Following motions for new

trial, he unsuccessfully appealed. Doc. 289, Notice of

Appeal, May 7, 2004; United States v. York, 428 F.3d 1325

(2005), re’hrg en banc denied, 167 Fed.Appx. 169 (Table)

(2005).

,

v

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Eleventh Circuit is reported at United States v. York,

428 F.3d 1325 (2005), re’hrg en banc denied, 167 Fed.Appx.

169 (Table) (2005). App. 1, 25. The recusal order of the

United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia,

Macon Division, is reported at United States v. York, 274

F.Supp. 2d 1347 (M.D. Ga. 2003).

°

JURISDICTION

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit entered judgment affirming Petitioner’s conviction

and 135-year sentence on October 27, 2005. App. 1. A

petition for rehearing was denied December 21, 2005. App.

25. The present petition is timely filed within the 60-day

extension of time granted by Justice Thomas.

2

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)

to review on a writ of certiorari the judgment of a federal

court of appeals.

r 4

v

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

United States Constitution, Amendment Five:

No person shall be ... deprived of life, lib-

erty, or property, without due process of law...

United States Constitution, Amendment Six:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused

shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,

by an impartial jury ... to be confronted with

witnesses against him; to have compulsory proc-

ess for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to

have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

United States Constitution, article I, section 10,

clause 1: :

No State shall... pass any... ex post facto

Law.

Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure:

The indictment or information may charge a

defendant in separate counts with 2 or more of-

fenses if the offenses charged ... are of the same

or similar character, or are based on the same act

or transaction, or are connected with or consti-

tute parts of a common scheme or plan.

Rule 14, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure:

(a) Relief. If the joinder of offenses ... in an

indictment, an information, or a consolidation for

3

trial appears to prejudice a defendant or the gov-

ernment, the court may order separate trials of

counts, sever the defendants’ trials, or provide

any other relief that justice requires.

°

STATEMENT OF CASE

The 60-year old African-American Petitioner, leader of

a religious organization, was sentenced to 135-year im-

prisonment. Doc. 285, Judgment, May 7, 2004. He was

initially charged in the Middle District of Georgia with

four counts of the interstate transportation of minors for

unlawful sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a),

and entered pleas of not guilty. Doc. 1, Indictment, May 2,

2002; Doc. 5, Arraignment, May 9, 2002.

The parties agreed to a settlement that call. © for a

stipulated term of 15-year imprisonment, and the forfei-

ture of property and currency. Doc. 78-86, Superseding

Information (3 counts), Waiver of Indictment, Plea Agree-

ment, Plea, Minute sheet on guilty plea, Findings of Fact

on Guilty Plea, Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, Agree-

ment Between Government and Defendant as to Waiver of

Rights, Jan. 23, 2003. However, the judge rejected the

agreement and stating that “a sentence of 20 years might

be acceptable.” United States v. York, 274 F.Supp. 2d 1347-

48 (M.D. Ga. 2003); Doc. 107, Order, June 25, 2003. The

judge was then removed from the case due to having

become improperly involved in plea negotiations. United

States v. York, 274 F.Supp. 2d at 1351.

A change of venue was granted due to extensive

prejudicial publicity, transferring the case from the Macon

Division, Middle District of Georgia, to the Brunswick