Under the 4t Amendment, a warrantless emergency mental health detention constitutes a physical seizure. Police often misconstrue ordinary street encounters with citizens as “mental crises,” and wrongfully seize the public. Police also use the Community Caretaking Function as a font for insidious criminal investigations. There is no “universal” standard which delineates the circumstances and/or legal requirements for such selzures.

(1) Whether Courts and Police improperly conflate subjective personal traits with true “mental illness” in the context of street encounters resulting in unlawful Emergency Mental Health Detentions?

(2) Whether the Community Caretaking Function has become a bountiful panacea for unlawful detentions, illegal seizures, and insidious searches by law enforcement?

1. Where the court that presided over a defendant’s trial and _ post-conviction evidentiary hearing finds the defendant suffered prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), is that mixed question of law and fact reviewed for clear error or reviewed de novo?

2. Where a defendant was convicted of one count but acquitted of others, may an appellate court rely on the acquittals in the jury’s verdict as proof that he was not prejudiced under Strickland?

3. If the erroneous introduction of collateral crime evidence is presumptively prejudicial on direct appeal, may a post-conviction court rely on that presumption in concluding that the defendant was prejudiced by his attorney’s deficient performance in failing to object to the presentation of such evidence?

215 South State Street Suite 760 Salt Lake City, UT 84111

I. | WASMR.SKYLER’S PLEA OF GUILTY KNOWING OR VOLUNTARY, WHEN THE FACTUAL BASIS IS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION OF THE HOBBS ACT OR A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE HOBBS ACT?

Il. DID THE DISTRICT COURT’S FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 11 VIOLATE DUE PROCESS AND MR. SKYLER ’S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS ?

Ill. WAS THE FACTUAL BASIS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT MR. SKYLER’S HOBBS ACT CONSPIRACY CONVICTION ?

IV. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR BY ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO VIOLATE THE PLEA AGREEMENT ?

V. DID THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ERR BY NOT FOLLOWING THIS COURT’S HOLDING IN SANTOBELLO v. NEW YORK, 404 U.S. 257 (1971)

it

Petitioner’s possession of a firearm in his home subjected him to five years’ imprisonment under New York law because he had prior non-violent convictions. The state court held that Mr. Conyers lacked standing to raise any Second Amendment defense because he had not applied for a gun license even though his prior non-violent felony convictions categorically barred a license. The state court also rejected the claim on the merits, without reference to any historical analogue supporting Petitioner’s lifetime disarmament.

This petition presents two questions: I. Whether, and under what circumstances, a

state can invoke state standing law to bar a

criminal defendant from invoking the Second

Amendment as a defense because he never

previously applied for a gun license that the

law categorically denied him? II. Whether permanently barring even in-home

gun possession on the basis of prior non-

violent convictions, without any finding of

dangerousness, violates the fundamental

right of self-defense the Second Amendment

protects?

1. Whether the right to due process on appeal is violated where, despite a criminal defendant-appellant’s repeated invocations of the party presentation principle, an appellate court relies on a dispositive legal argument that was not presented by the government.

2. Whether, as an alternative to deciding the first question presented, the Court should grant certiorari, vacate the Second Circuit judgment, and remand the case in light of the recent party-presentation-related order in Clark v. Sweeney, 607 USS. ––, 2025 WL 3260170 (2025).

3. Whether, as some circuit courts have held, a general appeal waiver set forth in a signed plea agreement does not apply to appellate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, or whether, as the Second Circuit assumed in this case, and as other circuits have previously determined, appeal waivers that do not mention ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be interpreted to preclude such claims on appeal.

1

1. Does Congress’s power “[t]o define and punish .. . Felonies committed on the high Seas,” authorize the United States to impose its laws upon foreign nationals for wholly foreign crimes committed in a foreign nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone (KEZ)?

2. Is the United States’ prosecution of foreign nationals under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act “MDLEA”) unconstitutional where neither the individual nor his offense bears any nexus to the United States?

1