In a wrongful death civil case and _ trial, pursuant to the Seventh Amendment’s right of trial by jury, should a demanded jury trial proceed against the lower tribunal Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, RASIER (FL), LLC and RASIER-DC, LLC in order to allow the jury to hear and weigh the record evidence including the opportunity to draw adverse inferences from the record evidence against the lower tribunal Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, RASIER (FL), LLC and RASIER-DC, LLC?

In a wrongful death civil case and _ trial, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process, should a demanded Jury trial proceed against the lower tribunal Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, RASIER (FL), LLC and RASIER-DC, LLC in order to allow the jury to hear and weigh the record evidence including the opportunity to draw adverse inferences from the record evidence against the lower tribunal Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, RASIER (FL), LLC and RASIER-DC, LLC?

1

The mail- and wire-fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1841 and 1348, criminalize the use of mails or wires in furtherance of “any scheme or artifice to defraud.” A federal indictment is duplicitous if it joins two or more distinct offenses in a single count, because such an indictment risks a non-unanimous verdict 1n violation of the Sixth Amendment. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020); Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999);

Each of the eight fraud counts on which Petitioner was convicted alleged a single “scheme and artifice to defraud Barbara Wade and/or Kitty Harris and/or various financial institutions and credit and loan-issuing institutions and/or others.” United States v. Hampton, No. 24-5858, 2026 WL 196220, at *8 (6th Cir. Jan. 26, 2026). Yet the evidence at trial supported three distinct schemes. The district court did not give a specific unanimity instruction. Reviewing only for plain error, the Sixth Circuit held that these multiple frauds against multiple victims constituted a single “scheme” with alternative “means,” and that the indictment and verdict were sound.

The question presented 1s:

Whether an indictment that charges, in a single mail- or wire-fraud count, what the evidence shows to be discrete schemes against discrete victims, is duplicitous in violation of the Sixth Amendment’s requirement of jury unanimity.

2

Petitioner is: : Lincoln G. Latham Jr | 55 Roxbury Street Post Office Box 191113 Roxbury ,Massachusetts 02119-9998 | | oo Respondent is: Arjun Roy Flynn Law Group | | | 185 Devonshire Street | Suite 401 . . Boston ,Ma 02110 |

RELATED CASES Latham Jr vs. Roy [ U.S District Court in Massachusetts ] Docket Number: 1:25-CV-11441-FDS © . Latham Jr vs Roy [ U.S Court of Appeals for 15* Circuit ]

‘Docket Number : 25-1809 | a Poah Communities & Bridle Path versus Lincoln Latham Jr _ [ Metro South Housing Court in Commonwealth of Massachusetts]

Docket Number: 25H82CV00020

| [Pg 2]

Section 10() of Florida’s Lethal Injection Protocol authorizes the Florida Department of Corrections execution team to perform central line venous cutdowns in the death chamber without local anesthesia.

The question presented is: Whether performing a central line venous cutdown without local anesthesia violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

1