type	Caption	Docket No	Court Below	Petitioner's Counsel	Counsel's Address	Recent Filings	QP
Petitions and applications docketed on May 08, 2026
paid	George Baldwin Hutchinson, Jr. v. United States	25-1266	Federal Circuit, No. 2024-1269 Judgment: June 06, 2025	George Baldwin Hutchinson Jr.	2727 Skyview Dr. #1337 Lithia Springs, GA 30122	[Main Document] [Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented CS hl St SHE ET HITE In The Supreme Court of the Gnited States GEORGE BALDWIN HUTCHINSON JR. [ Petitioner, \| V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MAJ (RET) GEORGE BALDWIN HUTCHINSON JR Priest G. Baldwin — Hutchinson 2727 Skyview Dr #1337 Lithia Springs Ga 30122 commonlawarbitration(@gmail.com Main 678 653 0237 Main2 404 721 2276 a EE Se Se Te ee eee 1
paid	Emmanuel Liberus John v. Board of Commissioners of Lake County, Indiana	25-1267	Seventh Circuit, No. 25-1452 Judgment: November 13, 2025	Emmanuel Liberus John	5834 Erie Avenue Hammond, IN 46320	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented \| 1 QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case presents the following questions of exceptional national importance: . : 1. Whether a county government’s enforcement of non-tax assessments through tax foreclosure \| procedures against a house of worship used for tax- exempt religious activity constitutes unconstitutional \| government entanglement in religious affairs in violation of the First Amendment? 2. Whether a religious leader has standing under \| 42. U.S.C. § 19838 to challenge government action that, under color of state law, deprives him of personal — \| liberty and protected property-related interests secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, where the \| deprivation arises from the seizure and sale of a house of worship used solely for religious ministry? \| 3. Whether lower courts err by declining to apply strict scrutiny when government action directly burdens religious exercise through the seizure and sale of a house of worship? 4. Whether a local government may circumvent constitutionally protected religious tax exemptions by recharacterizing mandatory charges as “fees” and enforcing them through tax foreclosure mechanisms against houses of worship?
paid	Polar Electro Oy v. Firstbeat Technologies Oy	25-1268	Federal Circuit, No. 2024-1801 Judgment: December 03, 2025	Anthony James Fuga	Holland & Knight LLP 150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606	[Petition]	NA
paid	Burford German Funding LLC v. financialright claims GmbH	25-1269	Third Circuit, No. 24-3171 Judgment: October 22, 2025	Derek T. Ho	Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036	[Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions] [Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a federal court that has subject-matter jurisdiction over a pending matter also has subject- matter jurisdiction to resolve motions to stay and compel arbitration of that matter under Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
paid	Christopher Veto v. The Boeing Company	25-1270	Ninth Circuit, No. 24-7060 Judgment: February 06, 2026	Christopher Veto	5345 Falls Way Apt. G Buena Park, CA 90621		NA
paid	Douglas Wain, et ux. v. Kimberly Nell Bunnell, Chief Regional Judge, 22nd Judicial Circuit Division 9, Fayette County, Kentucky	25-1271	Sixth Circuit, No. 25-5722 Judgment: February 13, 2026	Douglas A. Wain	P.O. Box 7473 Westlake Village, CA 91359		NA
paid	Philip E. Hahn v. New Jersey	25-1272	Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, No. A-001932-23 Judgment: August 02, 2024	Philip Hahn	610 Falmouth Ave Paramus, NJ 07652	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented 2 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Should the members of the current Supreme court affirm the prior Supreme courts’ opinions? Slocum v. New York Insurance Co., 228 US 364 is clear where the right to trial by jury of 12 is to be ‘preserved’. Slocum v. New York Life Insurance Co., 228 US 364 is also clear where a jury is to perform its office. The question presented is: Can the judges in the state of New Jersey decide a case in the absence of a jury of 12 confirmation of the court’s finding of fact? Parsons v. Bedford, Breedlove & Robeson, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 433 433 (1830) is clear where there is a right to trial by jury in every state constitution. The question presented is: Is there a right to trial by jury, of more than just a judge-jury of one, in a court created via New Jersey state law? Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)is clear where the Supreme court can create general federal common law. The question presented is: Have the previous Supreme courts of the United States created general federal common law, via the prior Supreme courts’ opinions, that is binding on a judge presiding over a court created via New Jersey state law? Hahn v. The state of New Jersey and the Rutgers Law School
ifp	Ryan Mendoza v. United States	25-7341	Third Circuit, No. 25-1154 Judgment: January 08, 2026	Ryan Smith	Ryan R. Smith Law Offices 310 Grant Street Suite 820 Pittsburgh, PA 15219	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION PRESENTED This case presents an acknowledged circuit split on an important and recurring question of Fourth Amendment law. Specifically, whether a hotel guest maintains an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in a room for which they have paid for a 24-hour block of time, where the guest has not affirmatively checked out, personal belongings remain in the room, and both hotel management and law enforcement express subjective uncertainty as to whether the guest has vacated the premises. ]
ifp	Dazmine Erving v. United States	25-7342	Seventh Circuit, No. 23-2828, 23-2831 Judgment: January 20, 2026	Michael Will Roy	Federal Public Defender Central District of Ill. 1701 4th Avenue, Suite 130 Rock Island, IL 61201	[Petition]	NA
ifp	Quionte Crawford v. United States	25-7343	Fourth Circuit, No. 24-6926 Judgment: December 02, 2025	Linn Richard Walker	Federal Public Defender 101 Cambridge Place Bridgeport, WV 26330	[Petition] [Appendix] [Appendix] [Appendix] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented I. QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a court of appeals may deny a certificate of appealability on a claim that counsel’s grossly erroneous sentencing advice induced a guilty plea by issuing a conclusory order that recites the governing legal standard without explaining why the claim is not debatable among reasonable jurists. 1
ifp	Jeremy Todd Goines v. United States	25-7344	Fifth Circuit, No. 25-10569 Judgment: February 05, 2026	Loui Itoh Mokodean	Federal Public Defender’s Office 819 Taylor Street Room 9A10 Fort Worth, TX 76102	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION PRESENTED Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment? 1
ifp	Rohit Uppal v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee	25-7345	Sixth Circuit, No. 25-5639 Judgment: April 07, 2026	Rohit Uppal	7922 Knowledge Lane Knoxville, TN 37938		NA
ifp	Joseph Duk-Hyun Lamborn v. United States	25-7346	Fourth Circuit, No. 22-4554 Judgment: November 18, 2025	Eric Joseph Brignac	Office of the Federal Public Defender 150 Fayetteville Street Suite 450 Raleigh, NC 27601	[Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions] [Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented 1 QUESTION PRESENTED Does a district court deny a criminal defendant his Sixth Amendment “right . .. to have the assistance of counsel for his defense” if it denies his motion for substitution of counsel based on the imminence of trial without inquiring into the defendant’s claim that he had documented evidence that he asked his appointed attorneys to file the motion months earlier and they simply ignored him?
ifp	Sidney Butler v. Illinois	25-7347	Supreme Court of Illinois, No. 130988 Judgment: November 20, 2025	Catherine Kendall Hart	Office State Appellate Defender, Fourth District 400 West Monroe St. Suite 303 Springfield, IL 62704	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. In explaining the parameters of the Confrontation Clause, this Court, in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 fn. 9 (2004), held that admission of out-of-court testimonial statements are admissible “so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain [them].” In this case, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the declarant’s out-of-court statements were admissible despite her inability to remember not only the prior testimonial statements, but the offense itself. The question presented here is: When a witness makes out-of-court, concededly testimonial statements accusing the defendant as the perpetrator of a crime, but at trialis unable to remember the offense itself or those prior accusations, was she available to defend or explain the statements under this Court’s holding in Crawford, and does the introduction of those testimonial statements violate the Confrontation Clause? 1