Petitions and applications docketed on March 30, 2026
type Caption Docket No Court Below Petitioner's Counsel Counsel's Address Recent Filings QP
paid Palani Karupaiyan

v. United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

25-1133 Third Circuit, No. 25-2981

Judgment: December 08, 2025

Palani Karupaiyan 6620 Yocum Street Philadelphia, PA 19142 [Petition] [Appendix]
Question(s) presented| F 7 I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED | Petitioner prayed 18 reliefs which were as Common-law Writ of Certiorari so the questions were . part of three test conditions requirement of the Writs. :
paid Daniel J. Griffin

v. United States

25-1134 First Circuit, No. 24-1475, 24-1540, 24-1541

Judgment: December 19, 2025

Daniel J. Griffin #21758509 Ashland FCI PO Box 6001 Ashland, KY 41101 [Petition] [Appendix] [Appendix]
Question(s) presented,
paid Svenhard’s Swedish Bakery

v. Bakery and Confectionary Union and Industry International Pension Fund

25-1136 Ninth Circuit, No. 23-60045

Judgment: September 12, 2025

Derrick Matthew Talerico Weintraub Zolkin Talerico & Selth LLP 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 730 Los Angeles, CA 90025 [Main Document] [Petition] NA
paid Nicholas Honchariw, Trustee, Honchariw Family Trust

v. County of Stanislaus, California

25-1137 Ninth Circuit, No. 24-5788

Judgment: December 09, 2025

Nicholas James Honchariw Solo Practioner 1033 South Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701 [Petition] NA
ifp Brian Vasquez

v. Colorado

25-7114 Court of Appeals of Colorado, No. 24CA1504

Judgment: August 21, 2025

Brian Vasquez 182250 CSP P.O. Box 777 Canon City, CO 81215-0777 NA
ifp Jacquelyn V. Fitzhugh

v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Indenture Trustee for the Impac CMB Trust Series 2005-3

25-7115 First Circuit, No. 23-1107

Judgment: August 11, 2025

Jacquelyn V. Fitzhugh 46 Bloomfield St Lynn, MA 01902 NA
ifp David G. Henry

v. Ron Komarovsky, Police Officer

25-7116 Ninth Circuit, No. 24-3014

Judgment: January 16, 2026

David G. Henry 366 Po Box Griffin, GA 30223 NA
ifp Devin M. Kugler

v. Gregg Scott

25-7117 Seventh Circuit, No. 24-2456

Judgment: September 29, 2025

Devin M. Kugler 17019 County Farm Rd. Rushville, IL 62681 [Petition] [Appendix]
Question(s) presented1 petit QUESTION(S) PRESENTED — : — Petifionee Mg og That +1 wontral we kL aa call 5 entre questio” Poser pk thineal? aac the U7 couRT OF APPEAL 7 seveah circuit erred ry Peg peti tiere © Due preces 7 Ze TR Distcitl couch and the Wes cou e = Ap peat & Seveyeu aire ules acoce due ade canduct cadasKkiteryeaHe guch depart Ee ve fromm gecephe dt | ara mio” al PONS Se ei (OK tl? 2. Dudrcia C- pcr ee mu’ phat pri pecitre” shauld | le garter a aerer Ji Ant” GF / over eo tidg g Ural Y dudgiren® agaen © © ge sj90ndenés on THEE rep at (G0 occaksiet’) a Ss Res ;°ndaaks canceded 7 ey ruonde NI aule (Ze Disc lerures — exer © of Lay and flat PHE Dr SE rio & So court Judge? actj)I77 oye Ce called C4? Aeathe™ ar Blas and coud 179 LL EM pir eendanes ~Resper enn’ jo cowrrt et Fraud Gnd nate fnl ervor by las gevu ctit” Derkerkart= what T° File +9 gee yry | tori’? iN Sun1Aagd Dud Fe ve Ve sveeeticae A) Deny iag ney) Rule GP? | aelie prom JU agment, and Pit cl Tg Pe tip jorer> ap peal 7 eg adanlt they as ECE 7S IVUETED bY - the du age yn the U* District COUT, Cent6al 77st SE of ILEIA?7 S to De t+7& VET ring > | -alled )27F2 Ques” °%) Preventitg arz avert turn | 4 Al agaim Sst Re sperde ar 5, bat? AG aaa SEONG Oe pif) ner Rig77 bY REALTES - ne wren {2 ANGAW 5T peter” by wespon heats —— Actle™ 7: | - SIF myeoti er? ( ara gZ ace I Peti freore© © caves, ps the ag mai Srl gE Dre King 37 ne Oo . yerQerce. CrauAy/oHX ? anh AAFIMels an : | r ny DID THE CANT RAL DO! STRICT OF PLZ (val S |
ifp Susan Melissa Nickas

v. United States

25-7118 Third Circuit, No. 23-1316

Judgment: September 30, 2025

Jason Ullman Federal Public Defender Office 100 Chestnut Street Third Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 [Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions] [Petition] [Appendix]
Question(s) presentedQUESTION PRESENTED

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a federal criminal conviction, must the court consider: Government evidence that exculpates or exonerates the accused, the rationality or reasonableness of the chain-of-inferences required for conviction, or the effect that the prosecutor’s misstatements about the law or evidence have on the jury’s verdict (which verdict, in turn, receives a high level of deference in sufficiency review)?

If a court does none of those things, then does its sufficiency test amount to no more than the “no evidence” test of Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 (1960), which this Court overruled in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 320 (1979)?

1