type	Caption	Docket No	Court Below	Petitioner's Counsel	Counsel's Address	Recent Filings	QP
Petitions and applications docketed on April 07, 2026
paid	Irving F. Rounds, Jr. v. Department of Justice	25-1153	First Circuit, No. 23-1789 Judgment: October 16, 2025	Irving F. Rounds Jr.	48 N. Sturbridge Rd. Apt. B Charlton, MA 01507	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether Petitioner was denied due process under the Fifth Amendment where the lower federal courts: I. Dismissed Petitioner's sworn claims of governmental retaliation and threats without affording any evidentiary hearing or opportunity to present witnesses, despite factual allegations that \| could not lawfully be resolved on the written record . alone; II. Denied motions for recusal and reassignment without stating any basis, despite documented institutional connections between the presiding judges and the named federal defendants, creating an appearance of bias too high to be constitutionally tolerable under Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 \| U.S. 868 (2009); and \| \| Ill. Affirmed dismissal by summary order and denied rehearing without providing any legal reasoning, \| leaving Petitioner unable to determine whether his , constitutional claims were rejected on jurisdictional, procedural, or merits grounds, in violation of the due process principles reaffirmed in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949 (2025). i
paid	Abrahim Mohamed Fofana v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security	25-1154	Eighth Circuit, No. 24-2485 Judgment: January 09, 2026	Abrahim Mohamed Fofana	WILSON LAW GROUP 3019 Minnehaha Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55406		NA
paid	Samsung SDI Company, Limited v. Shawn Peters	25-1156	Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. A25-0195 Judgment: October 13, 2025	Roy T. Englert Jr.	Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP 2000 K Street NW 4th Floor Washington, DC 20006	[Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions] [Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION PRESENTED The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only when the plaintiffs claims “arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts’ with the forum.” Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 359 (2021). The question presented is: Whether, in a product-liability action, the plaintiff’s claims relate to the defendant’s forum contacts when the defendant manufacturer sells the product in the forum exclusively to corporate customers and prohibits sales of the product to consumers, and the plaintiff consumer acquires the product in the forum through the unauthorized, unilateral activity of a third-party retailer.
ifp	Abid Naseer v. United States	25-7151	Second Circuit, No. 23-37 Judgment: April 21, 2025	Abid Naseer	#05770-748 USMCFP Springfield P.O. Box 4000 Springfield, MO 65801-4000		NA
ifp	De Andre L. Owens v. United States	25-7152	Seventh Circuit, No. 24-2244 Judgment: December 19, 2025	De Andre Owens	14748-025 FCI Williamsburg, P.O. Box 340 Salters, SC 29590		NA
ifp	Steven Anthony Perez v. California	25-7153	Court of Appeal of California, Fifth Appellate District, No. F087898 Judgment: May 15, 2025	Steven Anthony Perez	P.O. Box 1050 Soledad, CA 93960-1050		NA
ifp	Jesse Taber v. United States	25-7154	Second Circuit, No. 25-935 Judgment: December 30, 2025	James Patrick Egan	Office of the Federal Public Defender 4 Clinton Square, 3rd Floor Syracuse, NY 13202	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(¢)(1) violates the Second Amendment, either on its face or as applied. 1
ifp	Lonnie Eugene Lillard v. United States	25-7155	Ninth Circuit, No. 24-3055 Judgment: June 04, 2025	Lonnie Eugene Lillard	5055 South Barton Place Seattle, WA 98118	[Petition] [Appendix] [Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis]	Question(s) presented ' QUESTION(S) PRESENTED _ Did the ninth circuit ruled erroneously when it failed to find that District Gourt had the authority and jurisdiction at the resenting hearing to exercise its discretion and hear Mr. Lillard as it relates to cause number 16-077? Even though the night circuit did not vacate the sentences for both supervised release violations, and the underlining, new criminal offense, is such fact detrimental to the District Court judges discretion? \| Should both, Mr. Lillard’s sentences for his supervised release violations and his new eriminal offense fall under the “sentence package doctrine”? . Did the night circuit issue a general remand versus a limited remand as to its published opinion at United States of America versus Lonnie Eugene Lillard, 57 F. 4th 729 (9th Cir. 2022) ? Did the ninth circuit rule erroneously when the court failed to find that the district court judge committed a procedural error by refusing to hear Mr. Lillard as to mitigating factors in relation to any potential re-sentencing? Should the ninth circuit determined whether or not appointed council, Thomas E Weaver, was ineffective for refusing to submit any 3553(a) materials and argue for a lower sentence on behalf of Mr. Lillard, once he infused himself into the criminal cause number 16-07?
ifp	Hezekiah Hamilton v. Illinois	25-7156	Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, No. 2-24-0504 Judgment: July 09, 2025	Hezekiah Hamilton	R-26458 PO Box 1000 Menard, IL 62259		NA
ifp	Juan Ibarra-Garcia v. United States	25-7157	Seventh Circuit, No. 24-3319 Judgment: December 31, 2025	Susan Michele Pavlow	Law Offices of Susan M. Pavlow 53 West Jackson Blvd. Suite 1550 Chicago, IL 60604	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether a prior conviction, which extends the statutory maximum term of imprisonment, 1s an element of the offense that should be submitted to a jury or admitted at a plea hearing, overruling Almendarez v. Torres, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). il
ifp	Jermaine Eggleston v. United States	25-7158	Ninth Circuit, No. 23-2360 Judgment: December 17, 2025	Todd W. Burns	Burns and Cohan 501 W. Broadway Suite 1510 San Diego, CA 92101	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) states, “[1]n a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. Those matters are for the trier of fact alone. ” The question presented 1s whether the government may circumvent Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) by eliciting an expert opinion on the mental state of a “hypothetical” person whose circumstances — including the receipt of a specific, unique text message — are a carbon copy of the defendant’s, thereby having the expert functionally opine on the defendant’s mental state. 1
ifp	Seth Neil Helgeson v. Dann Edward Greenwood, Judge, District Court of Stark County	25-7159	Supreme Court of North Dakota, No. 20250358 Judgment: December 05, 2025	Seth Neil Helgeson	297 Suncrest Ave Dickinson, ND 58601		NA