1. Whether a criminal defendant may raise an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession for all individuals previously convicted of any felony offense is an unconstitutional infringement of the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

ia

This petition presents a straightforward case for certiorari review of whether the Fifth Circuit failed to appropriately explain its affirmance.

This Court should accordingly grant review to reverse the Fifth Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s upwardly varied sentence.

QUESTION PRESENTED

The question presented 1s:

Whether the Fifth Circuit properly reviewed the district court’s

sentence when it wrote a two paragraph opinion affirming an

upwardly varied sentence.

ia

The Constitution provides for our citizens’ right against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. CONST., amend IV. An affidavit sworn to a magistrate that shows probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be found in a sufficiently-identified place leads to a lawful watrant to search. But when an officer makes a statement in the affidavit that 1s false or misleading and made with a reckless disregard for the truth, the probable cause calculation should be made after striking the false or misleading statement. If after striking that statement, an affidavit fails to establish probable cause, and 1f no reasonable officer could rely in the warrant in good faith, the evidence obtained must be suppressed.

Procedurally, a citizen is required to move in the district court for a hearing on whether the affidavit seeking a warrant contains a false or misleading statement, and any denial of that request should be raised on direct appeal to the circuit court. In the event that a citizen’s counsel unreasonably fails to identify and raise an argument that the Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure has been violated, the Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 allow the citizen to petition the district court for redress. On a showing that an objectively reasonable attorney would have filed the motion to suppress and request for a Franks hearing, and on a showing that a reasonable probability exists that such a motion would have led to a different result in the case, relief for the citizen 1s appropriate. The Court has held that a district court’s debatable ruling on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be certified for appeal if the petitioner makes a substantial showing that constitutional right has been violated. The appellant need not show full entitlement to relief.

In this case, Petitioner filed a § 2255 motion as a pro se prisoner litigant. All claims involved the substantial question of whether the Petitioner was denied the right to the effective assistance when counsel failed to request a Franks hearing. Although oftentimes inartfully presenting the claims, Petitioner clearly set forth that an officer made a claim in an affidavit that was not true; in three other instances, officers stated under oath or on body cam to other officers showed the exact opposite of the statement. The statement was material to the finding of probable cause. And yet the district court failed to liberally construe the filing, re-worded Petitioner’s argument, ignored portions of the argument, recreated a greatly oversimplified argument, and denied it.

Petitioner appealed. Although the district court’s decisions were debatable, and while Petitioner made a showing of a substantial denial of his constitutional rights, the Fourth Circuit summarily denied certificate of appealability.

The question for the Court is whether a circuit court errs as a matter of law and fact, and ignores this Court’s precedent, in failing to certify issues for appeal from a denied § 2255 motion, when the district court failed to liberally construe the filing, the district court’s ruling was debatable, and the ruling resulted in the substantive denial of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights to effective assistance and against unreasonable searches and seizures.

1