Petitions and applications docketed on August 10, 2026
type Caption Docket No Court Below Petitioner's Counsel Counsel's Address Recent Filings QP
paid James Ryan Earl

v.

Texas

26-178 Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, No. 03-23-00427-CR

Judgment: June 27, 2025

Lane Andrew Haygood Haygood Law Firm 620 N. Grant Ave. Suite 913 Odessa, TX 79761 [Main Document] [Petition] [Appendix]
Question(s) presentedQUESTION PRESENTED

Texas Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7) makes it a crime to “send[] repeated electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another” when done with intent to produce any of those same effects. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has repeatedly held that the statute does not even “implicate” the First Amendment because it regulates “non-speech conduct.” Hx parte Barton, 662 S.W.3d 876, 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022); Ex parte Sanders, 663 S.W.3d 197, 215-16 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022). Yet last year, the same court held the same statute unconstitutional as applied because the messages prosecuted under it were “speech.” Owens v. State, 728 S.W.3d 155, 167 (Tex. Crim. App. 2025). These positions are inconsistent; either the means of committing the offense as described by the statute are “speech” (and thus implicate the First Amendment) or the only conduct which can be constitutionally forbidden under the statute is the non-content, non-speech part of the offense. The question presented is thus:

Whether Texas Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7), which

criminalizes repeated electronic communications

sent with intent to and reasonably likely to annoy,

alarm, embarrass, or offend another person, is

overbroad under the First Amendment.

paid Mitchell Vexler

v.

Don Spencer, Chief Appraiser, Denton Central Appraisal District

26-179 Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, No. 02-24-00305-CV

Judgment: May 01, 2025

Mitchell Vexler 1913 Justin Road Suite 117 Flower Mound, TX 75028 NA
paid Edward Allyn Hudacko

v.

Regents of the University of California

26-180 Ninth Circuit, No. 24-7360

Judgment: October 21, 2025

Gene Clayton Schaerr Schaerr | Jaffe 1717 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 [Main Document] [Petition] NA
ifp David Brend

v.

United States

26-5258 Second Circuit, No. 24-2784, 24-2977, 24-3264

Judgment: April 15, 2026

David Brend #22795-018 FCI Coleman Satellite Camp P.O. Box 1027 Coleman, FL 33521 NA
ifp Gerald Kiner

v.

Shelby County, Tennessee Government

26-5265 Sixth Circuit, No. 25-5649

Judgment: February 17, 2026

Gerald Kiner 4400 Hickory Hill Road Memphis, TN 38141 NA
ifp Matthew Nix

v.

United States

26-5266 Second Circuit, No. 23-7841, 23-7910

Judgment: February 25, 2026

Michael Joseph Witmer The Law Office of Michael Jos. Witmer 28 East Main Street Suite 900 Rochester, NY 14614 [Petition] NA
ifp Donald Gene Barnes

v.

Shawn Gillis, Warden

26-5267 Eleventh Circuit, No. 25-12632

Judgment: January 23, 2026

Donald G. Barnes Sr. #1129864 Wheeler Correctional Facility P.O. Box 466 Alamo, GA 30411 NA
ifp Daewon Warren

v.

United States

26-5268 Fourth Circuit, No. 23-6746

Judgment: February 04, 2025

Daewon Warren #28563-171 P.O. Box 1000 Cumberland, MD 21501 NA
ifp In Re Manuel Walters 26-5269 NA, No. —

Judgment: —

Manuel Walters #0808953 Southbay Correctional Rehab. P.O. Box 7171 Southbay, FL 33493 NA
ifp Michael Stephen Combs

v.

Nathan Gaughan, Warden

26-5270 Ninth Circuit, No. 19-99010

Judgment: March 12, 2026

Claudia Pamela Gómez Office of the Federal Public Defender 321 East 2nd Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 [Main Document] [Petition] [Appendix]
Question(s) presentedCAPITAL CASE QUESTION PRESENTED In Combs v. Broomfield, the Ninth Circuit held that the California Supreme Court could reasonably have determined that trial counsel did not render deficient performance at the penalty phase under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), when investigators abandoned the search for Combs’s biological mother after tracing her to Texas, but stopping due to time and financial constraints. Post-conviction investigation located her and obtained evidence that Combs had a family history of mental illness and suffered prenatal exposure to alcohol, amphetamines, and other drugs, resulting in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. This evidence, which was not presented to the jury, would have rebutted the prosecution’s argument that Combs was not actually mentally 11] and explained the brain damage his trial experts identified. The question presented is: Does the Ninth Circuit’s decision conflict with this Court’s decisions in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 862 (2000), Wiggins v. Smith, 5389 U.S. 510 (20038), and Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005), which require capital defense counsel to conduct a thorough investigation? 1
app Delbert Tyler Trevino

v.

United States

26A177 Tenth Circuit, No. 24-2170

Judgment: —

Shira Kieval Office of the Federal Public Defender 633 17th St., Suite 1000 Denver, CO 80202 [Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions] NA
app Frank Parasmo

v.

United States

26A178 Second Circuit, No. 23-6555

Judgment: —

Neal Kumar Katyal Milbank LLP 1101 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 [Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions] NA
app Food & Water Watch

v.

Environmental Protection Agency

26A179 Ninth Circuit, No. 25-384

Judgment: —

Michael Paul Connett Siri & Glimstad LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 [Main Document] NA