FROM: 18079002

TO: Legal

SUBJECT: Request to Staff JOYNER, LEROY, Reg# 18079002, YAZ-B-A

DATE: 01/24/2026 07:37:58 PM

To:

Inmate Work Assignment: SUPREME COURT

| PROCEEDINGS IN FEDERAL TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS CASE ae

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (M.D. Ala.)

United States v. Leroy Thomas Joyner, Jr., No. 1:20-CR-00033-ECM-SMD (June 21, 2020)

United States v. Leroy Thomas Joyner, Jr., No. 1:21-CR-00339-RAH-SRW (January 27, 2022) |

United States v. Leroy Thomas Joyner, Jr., No. 1:22-CR-00242-ECM-JTA (August 9, 2024)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS (11th Cir.) |

United States v. Leroy Thomas Joyner, Jr., No. 21-11928 (July 1, 2021)

United States v. Leroy Thomas Joyner, Jr., No. 21-12175 (November 2, 2021)* |

United States v. Leroy Thomas Joyner, Jr., No. 21-13944 (March 23, 2022)

United States v. Leroy Thomas Joyner, Jr., No. 23-10189 (April 11, 2023)

United States v. Leroy Thomas Joyner, Jr., No. 24-12193 (November 21, 2024)

United States v. Leroy Thomas Joyner, Jr., No. 24-12605 (Pending) | |

United States v. Leroy Thomas Joyner, Jr., No. 25-10616 (July 29, 2025) |

• When adjudicating appeal number 21-12175, the Eleventh Circuit pursuant to Parr v. United States held that the initial and all

subsequent indictments would be considered one single prosecution. 351 U.S. 513, 518-519 (1956).

1. Whether the protection for statements “made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority” under Federal Rule of Evidence 410(a)(4) excludes statements made to law enforcement acting under the prosecuting authority’s express or implied authorization.

2. Whether the Jury Selection and Service Act’s procedural time bar applies where a district court summarily denies a motion to stay proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1867, without requesting a sworn statement or affording counsel an opportunity to attest to the truth of the motion’s factual assertions.

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner is the defendant, Tyler Jay Mullins. Respondent is the United

States of America. RELATED PROCEEDINGS

United States District Court (E.D. Okla.):

United States v. Mullins, No. CR-21-60-CBG (Sept. 28, 2023).

United States Court of Appeals (10th Cir.):

United States v. Mullins, No. 24-7003 (Jan. 16, 2026). 1

In early 2021, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Jeremiah Banks—a prisoner with an eighth-grade education who had no appointed counsel—filed a “mixed” federal habeas petition and a request for stay-and-abeyance pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005).

The District Court denied Banks’s stay request and dismissed his petition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Banks had not satisfied Rhines’s first requirement—good cause for failure to previously exhaust his claims—because he delayed in exhausting his claims for fifteen months after filing his federal petition. In effect, the Ninth Circuit held that to show good cause and procure a Rhines stay, a habeas petitioner such as Banks has a continuing obligation after he files his federal petition to explain why he has not yet exhausted state remedies.

This requirement appears nowhere in #hines. To the contrary, the plain text, reasoning, and context of Rhines all instruct that the good cause inquiry concerns events before the filing of a federal habeas petition; post-filing developments are irrelevant.

The question presented is thus: did the Ninth Circuit’s denial of a stay so clearly misapply Rhines’s good cause standard as to call for reversal?

1