type	Caption	Docket No	Court Below	Petitioner's Counsel	Counsel's Address	Recent Filings	QP
Petitions and applications docketed on August 12, 2026
paid	United Airlines, Incorporated v. Genise Kincannon, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated	26-183	Fifth Circuit, No. 24-10708 Judgment: March 09, 2026	Noel John Francisco	Jones Day 51 Louisiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001	[Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions] [Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented RUSSELL D. CAWYER KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP 201 Main St., Ste. 2000 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Additional Counsel for Petitioner
paid	Defense Distributed v. Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey	26-184	Third Circuit, No. 23-3058 Judgment: February 12, 2026	Charles Randall Flores	Flores Law PLLC 917 Franklin Street Suite 600 Houston, TX 77002	[Main Document] [Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented 1 QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Third and Fifth Circuits are split over venue in this very action. After the case was transferred from Texas to New Jersey, the Fifth Circuit held the transfer unlawful, vacated it, and directed a return request. Yet the District of New Jersey refused the resulting return request, and the Third Circuit affirmed retention on the opposite view of venue. On the merits, the Third Circuit created an acknowledged circuit split over when the First Amendment covers computer code. The questions presented are: Whether a transferee court may retain a case after the transferor circuit holds the transfer unlawful, vacates it, and directs a formal return request. Whether the First Amendment covers communicative computer code without more, or only upon additional indicia of expressiveness.
ifp	Gary Jerome Miller v. Florida	26-5276	District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, No. 4D2025-1287 Judgment: May 14, 2026	Paul Edward Petillo	Office of the Public Defender 421 Third Street Sixth Floor West Palm Beach, FL 33401	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION PRESENTED Whether Petitioner was deprived of his right, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, to a trial by a 12-person jury? This is the same question presented in Kian v. Florida, No. 25- 6623, 2026 WL 1718018 (U.S. June 15, 2026) (granting petition). i
ifp	Michael G. Thorogood v. Department of the Navy	26-5277	Federal Circuit, No. 2026-1219 Judgment: June 03, 2026	Michael Thorogood	2820 Woodland Avenue Norfolk, VA 23504		NA
ifp	Darrick Dernard Bell v. United States	26-5278	Sixth Circuit, No. 24-1657 Judgment: May 07, 2026	James W Amberg	Amberg & Amberg, PLLC 32121 Woodward Ave. Ste PH Royal Oak, MI 48073	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented Questions Presented Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments permit a sentencing court to increase a defendant’s Guidelines range based on conduct underlying charges on which the jury deadlocked and which the Government then dismissed. Whether a prior sentence that expired by its own terms before the fifteen-year lookback period of U.S.S.G. §4A1.2(e)(1) may be counted toward criminal history on the basis of state-law rules regarding sentence aggregation, or the denial of presentence credit, that treat the sentence as unserved or as having caused later incarceration. T
ifp	Daniel Barletta v. Kevin McCarthy, Superintendent, Elmira Correctional Facility	26-5279	Second Circuit, No. 25-2748 Judgment: February 25, 2026	Mark John Mahoney	Harrington & Mahoney 70 Niagara Street, 3rd Floor Buffalo, NY 14202	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented Question Presented Whether the Second Circuit, in this murder case, clearly misapplied the standard set by this Court for allowing a Certificate of Appealability when it used a purely merits-based standard to deny review of (1) a categorical denial of the Right to Present a Defense, (2) a fundamental misconception and misapplication of the “independent and adequate state bar’ doctrine, and (3) the unconstitutional denial of de novo review by the Article III judge of a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation — when all of these rulings were more than, as described in Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100 (2017), “reasonably debatable.” 1
ifp	Indiana, ex rel. Michael Tyrone Sturghiss v. Superior Court of Indiana, Johnson County	26-5280	Supreme Court of Indiana, No. 26S-OR-206 Judgment: June 29, 2026	Michael Tyrone Sturghiss	1695 Farm Meadow Drive Greenwood, IN 46143		NA
ifp	Georgio Mont Ser v. Nethanjah Breitenbach, Warden	26-5281	Supreme Court of Nevada, No. 89394 Judgment: January 15, 2026	Georgio Mont Ser	#1278539 Lovelock Correctional Center 1200 Prison Road Lovelock, NV 89419		NA
ifp	Rogelio Reyes v. United States	26-5282	Fifth Circuit, No. 25-11334 Judgment: May 11, 2026	Adam Ryan Nicholson	Office of the Federal Public Defender 525 South Griffin Street, Suite 629 Dallas, TX 75202	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether all facts—including the fact of a prior conviction—that increase a defendant’s statutory maximum must be pleaded in the indictment and either admitted by the defendant or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt? 1
ifp	In Re Bridget Gilmore	26-5283	NA, No. — Judgment: —	Bridget Gilmore	PO Box 434 Texarkana, TX 75504		NA
ifp	Kyrell R. Alonzo v. Russ Rurka, Acting Warden	26-5284	Sixth Circuit, No. 25-1996 Judgment: April 02, 2026	Kyrell R. Alonzo	#950152 Lakeland Correctional Facility 141 First St. Coldwater, MI 49036	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW — () WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL WHERE HIS TRIAL ATTORNEY WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BY FAILING TO FULLY INVESTIGATE THE CASE AND ASSERT A VALID DEFENSE TO THE CHARGE OF MURDER WHERE EVIDENCE IN HIS POSSESSION SUPPORTED A VALID DEFENSE OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE. US CONST. AMENDS. Vi AND XIV? \| () ~ {S$ PETITIONER ENTITLED TO RELIEF SUCH AS A NEW TRIAL WHERE THE PROSECUTION ALLOWED FALSE EVIDENCE TO BE INTRODUCED INTO THE TRIAL BY HER WITNESS POLICE SGT. STEVEN FORD'S CREATION OF A CD VIDEO WHICH DELETED SCENES OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE AND ONLY INCLUDED SCENES INCULPATING PETITIONER IN VIOLATION : OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. US CONST. AMEND. XIV? (Hi) WAS PETITIONER DEPRIVED OF HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DURING THE DIRECT APPEAL WHERE APPELLATE COUNSEL FAILED TO PRESENT THE CLAIMS ASSERTED ON APPEAL MANDATING RELIEF. US CONST. AMENDS. VI \| AND XIV? . (IV) WAS PETITIONER DENIED HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL WHERE THE PROSECUTOR PERPETRATED A FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY MISLEADING THE JURY WITH ALTERED VIDEO RECORDINGS FROM THE CRIME SCENE THAT DELETED EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE DEFENSE AND DEPRIVING PETITIONER OF HIS RIGHT TO A FUNDAMENTAL FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW? \| (V) \| IS PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL WHERE HE WAS DENIED A . PROPERLY INSTRUCTED JURY WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURORS ON THE FAULTY JURY VERDICT FORM PROVIDED BY THE COURT REQUIRING REVERSAL. US CONST. AMEND. XIV?
ifp	Daniel Robert Beaty v. United States	26-5285	Eighth Circuit, No. 25-1355 Judgment: February 04, 2026	Daniel Robert Beaty	#07268-511 USP McCreary P.O. Box 3000 Pine Knot, KY 42635	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented \| QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Can a defendant be found responsible for relevant conduct unrelated to the single count of 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1), (CLA) that he was charged and. pled guilty to when he was not charged with 21 U.S.C. §846? Beaty answers "no". c « \| <
ifp	Julian R. Hood, Jr. v. Merit Systems Protection Board	26-5286	Federal Circuit, No. 2026-1099 Judgment: April 16, 2026	Julian R. Hood Jr.	2000 S. Escondido Blvd. Unit 33 Escondido, CA 92025-8211		NA
ifp	James E. Whitney, nka James E. Wennerstein v. Linda Southern	26-5287	Eighth Circuit, No. 25-2587 Judgment: January 29, 2026	James Edward Whitney	#163817 P.O. Box 970 Marianna, AR 72360-0970		NA
ifp	Jerry Lee Canfield v. Bobby Lumpkin, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice	26-5288	Fifth Circuit, No. 25-40165 Judgment: February 09, 2026	Jerry Lee Canfield	TDJC #01848978 H.H. Coffield Unit, 2661 F.M. 2054 Tennessee Colony, TX 75884	[Main Document]	NA
app	Hatchet M. Speed v. United States	26A190	Fourth Circuit, No. 23-4308 Judgment: —	Carolyn Anne Stewart	Stewart Country Law PA 1204 Swilley Rd. Ste B Plant City, FL 33567	[Main Document]	NA
app	Robert Matthew Caldwell v. Virginia	26A191	Supreme Court of Virginia, No. 251068 Judgment: —	Jeffrey L. Fisher	Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305	[Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions]	NA
app	Stephen James Kilpatrick v. Joseph Walters, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections	26A192	Fourth Circuit, No. 25-6855 Judgment: —	Stephen James Kilpatrick	#1968754 VADOC Centralized Mail Distribution Center 3521 Woods Way State Farm, VA 23160	[Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions]	NA
app	Roosevelt Charles Booth, III v. Florida	26A193	Supreme Court of Florida, No. SC2025-1625 Judgment: —	Roosevelt Charles Booth III	#S29776 Santa Rosa Correctional Institution 5850 East Milton Road Milton, FL 32583	[Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions]	NA
app	Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center v. Ventura County, California	26A195	Ninth Circuit, No. 26-5072 Judgment: —	Walter Tretheway Clark	Walter Clark Legal Group 71861 Highway 111 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270	[Main Document]	NA