type	Caption	Docket No	Court Below	Petitioner's Counsel	Counsel's Address	Recent Filings	QP
Petitions and applications docketed on September 11, 2026
paid	Francisco Pineda-Barrientos v. Maryland	26-329	Appellate Court of Maryland, No. 1444, September Term, 2023 Judgment: September 02, 2025	Andrew V. Jezic	The Law Offices of Jezic & Moyse, LLC 2730 University Blvd. W. Suite 604 Wheaton, MD 20902	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require a criminal jury, on request, to be instructed on the presumption of innocence and the burden of reasonable doubt before the presentation of evidence. Whether refusal to give an instruction, on request, on the presumption of innocence until final instructions is structural error, overruling Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786 (1979). 1
paid	Raymond Campbell v. Marco Rubio, Secretary of State	26-330	Fifth Circuit, No. 26-50282 Judgment: July 02, 2026	Raymond Campbell	6005 Isabella Drive El Paso, TX 79912		NA
paid	Mark Mahon v. Apple Inc.	26-331	Ninth Circuit, No. 24-3571 Judgment: —	Mark Mahon	Mariners Rest Mariners View Avenue Passage West, Cork, Ireland, XX X	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented \| QUESTIONS PRESENTED : Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine designed to \| protect the integrity of judicial proceedings. It . ordinarily applies only where a party has actually _ taken a prior position, a court has accepted that : position, and the party later seeks an unfair . : advantage by taking a clearly inconsistent position. In these related copyright appeals, judicial \| estoppel was applied against Petitioner based on a \| \| purported 2016 declaration attributed to him. . Petitioner preserved sworn record evidence that he \| did not execute ‘that declaration, had not seen it \| before April 2020, and maintained that it was forged and unauthorized. The courts nevertheless treated the declaration as Petitioner’s prior position without resolving, or meaningfully addressing, the preserved \| \| dispute over authenticity, provenance, execution, and attribution. : ‘The questions presented are: 1. Whether a federal court may apply judicial estoppel to bar a_ copyright plaintiffs ownership or standing position based on an alleged “prior position” where the litigant preserved sworn record evidence that the \| : statement was not his, was not executed by . \| him, and was materially disputed as to 7 authenticity, provenance, execution, and , attribution.
paid	Gulf Coast Racing LLC. v. Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, Incorporated	26-332	Fifth Circuit, No. 23-10520 Judgment: June 11, 2026	Gregory Philip Sapire	Maynard Nexsen PC 2500 Bee Caves Road, Building1, Suite 150 Austin, TX 78746	[Petition]	NA
paid	P. L. v. R. S.	26-333	Supreme Court of New Hampshire, No. 2025-0339 Judgment: November 13, 2025	P. L.	PO Box 843 Concord, NH 03818		NA
ifp	Charles Ditto v. United States	26-5531	Ninth Circuit, No. 24-7191 Judgment: March 12, 2026	Chad Pennington	Federal Public Defender Central District of Cal. 321 East 2nd Los Angeles, CA 90012	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION PRESENTED Whether lower courts may apply a “reasonable probability” standard in evaluating the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule? The lower courts’ use of a “reasonable probability” standard in the inevitable discovery context has eroded this Court’s holding and its core exclusionary rule rationale in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 481 (1984). 1
ifp	Jason A. Czekalski v. William Hart, Individually and as Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Corrections	26-5532	First Circuit, No. 23-1561 Judgment: October 27, 2025	Jason A. Czekalski	#95579 281 North State Street P.O. Box 14 Concord, NH 03302	[Main Document]	NA
ifp	Susan Braun v. Tracey Sager	26-5533	District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, No. 3D2024-1192 Judgment: December 03, 2025	Susan Braun	45 NW 44th Street Miami, FL 33127		NA
ifp	Bruce Wood v. Delaware	26-5534	Supreme Court of Delaware, No. 518, 2024 Judgment: December 22, 2025	Bruce Wood	557815 James T. Vaughn CC 1181 Paddock Road Smyrna, DE 19977	[Main Document]	NA
ifp	Jacqueline Lynne Ortiz v. Virginia	26-5536	Supreme Court of Virginia, No. 250679 Judgment: June 11, 2026	Meghan Shapiro	Law Office of Meghan Shapiro 421 King Street, Suite 505 Alexandria, VA 22314	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION PRESENTED In Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), this Court held that the Due Process Clause requires the following standard of review for appellate claims of insufficient evidence of a criminal conviction: whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Jackson Court explicitly rejected a standard that asked whether “no evidence” supported a conviction. Setting itself apart from every other state and federal jurisdiction in the nation, Virginia has continued to apply its own standard of review: a pre-Jackson relic that asks only whether a criminal conviction is “without evidence fo support if.” Does this standard, applied in Ms. Ortiz's case, violate the Due Process Clause as interoreted by this Court in Jackson? PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioner Jacqueline Lynne Ortiz was the defendant/appellee below. Respondent Commonwealth of Virginia was the state/appellant below. ji
ifp	Alaa E. Elkharwily v. Mohamed E. El-Kharwely	26-5537	Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, No. 38789-5-III, 39196-5-III, 39197-3-III Judgment: July 24, 2025	Alaa Elkharwily	726 W 6th Ave #303 Spokane, WA 99204	[Main Document]	NA
ifp	Latosha A. Ward v. Tony E. Ward, Sr.	26-5538	Fourth Circuit, No. 25-2131 Judgment: April 27, 2026	Latosha A. Ward	P.O. Box 13281 Durham, NC 27709		NA
ifp	Alaa Elkharwily v. Mohamed E. Elkharwely	26-5539	Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, No. 38201-0-III, 38347-4-III, 38348-2-III Judgment: July 24, 2025	Alaa Elkharwily	726 W 6th Ave #303 Spokane, WA 99204	[Main Document]	NA
ifp	Stephen D. Phillips v. Correctional Officers	26-5540	Sixth Circuit, No. 25-5426 Judgment: November 12, 2025	Stephen D. Phillips	#273140 NWCY, 960 State Route 212 Tiptonville, TN 38079		NA
app	Lucia F. Sanchez v. Raul Torrez, Attorney General of New Mexico	26A330	Tenth Circuit, No. 25-2009 Judgment: —	Christopher Matthew Kieser	Pacific Legal Foundation 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1290 Sacramento, CA 95814	[Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions]	NA
app	Ryan P. Givey v. Alicia A. Givey	26A331	Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District, No. 163 MAL 2026 Judgment: —	Ryan P. Givey	428 Hannum Ave West Chester, PA 19380	[Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions]	NA
app	Vermont Information Processing, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board	26A332	District of Columbia Circuit, No. 24-1360 24-1375 Judgment: —	Stephen D. Ellis	Paul Frank + Collins, PC P.O. Box 1307 Burlington, VT 05402	[Main Document]	NA
app	Lynne Florio v. Irving H. Picard, as Trustee for the Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC	26A333	Second Circuit, No. 25-3036 Judgment: —	Florio Picard	45 Christopher St. New York, NY 10014	[Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions]	NA
app	Jonathan Berall v. Teleflex Medical, Inc.	26A334	Federal Circuit, No. 2025-1124 Judgment: —	Jonathan Berall	173 Columbia Heights Apt. 5R Brooklyn, NY 11201	[Main Document]	NA
app	Desmond Harris v. Missouri	26A335	Supreme Court of Missouri, No. SC101233 Judgment: —	Kathryn Marie Merwald	Missouri State Public Defender, Appellate PCR West 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 600 Kansas City, MO 64108	[Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions]	NA
app	AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Liz Murrill, Attorney General of Louisiana	26A336	Fifth Circuit, No. 24-30645, 24-30651, 24-30673 Judgment: —	Allon Kedem	Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001	[Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions]	NA