In June of 2024, Petitioner was sentenced to 35 months and 2 days with an expected release date of December 24, 2026. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Petitioner’s brief on appeal raised just two issues: that his sentence was both procedurally and_ substantively unreasonable.

On December 138, 2024, all briefing from Petitioner and the Government was complete with a total of twenty-six pages of argument. This case has been under submission since that time, without a decision. On June 18, 2026, Petitioner filed an unopposed motion to expedite proceedings, alerting the court to the urgency of resolution. There is no order on the motion and still no decision on the appeal.

As of today, August 12, 2026, Mr. Villanueva-Martinez has served almost 31 months of his 35-month and 2-day sentence. Once Petitioner’s sentence is complete this December, the questions on appeal—whether that sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable—will be moot.

The question presented is: Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing Respondents, the Three Unknown Judges of the Eleventh Circuit assigned to United States v. Villanueva-Martinez, No. 24-12208, to decide the appeal.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court explained the Second Amendment’s key terms. The Court later fleshed out the two-step analysis required 1n a Second Amendment case in NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). If the challenged law clashes with the plain text of the Amendment, it 1s presumptively unconstitutional. Id. at 24. The government then has the burden to show that the challenged law is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id.

The Court’s subsequent Second Amendment cases have focused on Bruen’s second step. See United States v. Hemani, 146 8. Ct. 1677 (2026); Wolford v. Lopez, 1468S. Ct. 2032 (2026); United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). But in Wolford, the Court clarified that the “plain text” inquiry under Bruen’s first step “entails three subsidiary questions’ —whether the challenged law (1) applies to “the people”; (2) concerns “Arms;” and (8) restricts the possession or carrying of arms. 1468. Ct. at 2043-44 (cleaned up).

The question presented 1s:

Under Bruen’s first step, does an additional presumption of constitutionality exist for laws characterized as “shall-issue li- censing regimes’?

I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and the Commerce Clause authorize criminal penalties any time a defendant uses an object that once crossed state lines to create an illegal image.

II. Whether at a minimum this Court should grant, vacate, and remand for re- consideration because of an intervening circuit decision that invalidates the premise on which the panel opinion below relies.

1