# Prologue — York v. United States (No. 05-1503) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0953%3A0 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Prologue - **Published:** January 1, 2005 ## Text 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 Whether use of a newer version of the Federal Sen- tencing Guidelines rather than that operative at the time of the purported crimes, resulting in more severe penal- ties, violates the ex post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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0953%3A0. Public record. Not legal advice.