In Hunter v. United States, 608 U.S. 718 (2026), this Court held that an appeal waiver “is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice,” rejected the Fifth Circuit’s rule that a valid waiver yields in “only two” circumstances, and remanded because the Fifth Circuit “did not address” the miscarriage-of-justice question. Nineteen days later, in this case, the Fifth Circuit enforced a waiver in the same form on the sole ground that it “is valid and encompasses’ petitioner’s sentencing claims. It did not mention Hunter. It then denied rehearing that raised Hunter squarely.

The panel also enforced the waiver against petitioner’s challenge to a $17,500 restitution order under 18 U.S.C. § 2259, a claim the Government had conceded was “not barred by the appellate waiver.” It did so by holding that the district court had “conducted the required inquiry.” Section 2259(b)(2) directs the court to “determine the full amount of the victim’s losses” and then to order restitution reflecting “the defendant’s relative role in the causal process.” The district court stated no losses, made no finding on causation or apportionment, adopted the amounts the victims requested, and left the judgment’s “Total Loss” column blank.

The questions presented are:

1. Whether a court of appeals may enforce an appeal waiver against a challenge

to a sentence without deciding whether enforcement would result in a

miscarriage of justice, as Hunter requires.

1

1. Was Petitioner denied his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when the Trial Court instructed the jury on Forcible Sodomy where model instructions included specific acts not supported by trial evidence?

IT. Corporate Disclosure Statement

Pursuant to Rule 29.6 of his Court’s Rules, Petitioner Gregory states that he has no parent company, and no publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of any parent company’s stock.

Ill. List of All Proceedings

Norfolk Circuit Court, No. CR21000556-00, CR21000556-01, CR21000556-02, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Deionn Damian Gregory, October 4, 2024.

The Court of Appeals of Virginia, Record No. 0041-25-1, Deionn Damian Gregory, s/k/a Deionn Ariy Yel Yasharallah, December 30, 2025.

The Supreme Court of Virginia, Record No. 260083 Deionn Damian Gregory, s/k/a Deionn Ariy Yel Yasharallah, July 24, 2026.

1. Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a Federal District Court from exercising | Subject-Matter Jurisdiction over an Independent Federal Complaint seeking damages for Fraudulent Property Liens under state law, where the alleged injury stems from the

: Defendants’ Out-of-Court Misconduct rather than the State Court Three Judgments themselves, thereby conflicting with Skinner v. Switzer 562 U.S. 521, 531 (2011) App. B, also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005), and rulings from the Fifth and Sixth Circuits. a Explanation: This question addresses the widening split among the Circuit Courts regarding the scope of Rooker-Feldman. It asks the Court to clarify whether Federal jurisdiction is stripped when a plaintiff challenges an independent injury (the Fraudulent Liens under Fla. Stat. § 817.535) rather than asking the Federal Court to undo a state Court order directly. It highlights that a judgment issued without notice or hearing : cannot bar a subsequent Federal suit on jurisdictional grounds.

2. Whether a Federal Court sitting in Diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1652 may expand state litigation privileges and judicial notice rules in a novel manner to dismiss an independent statutory claim with prejudice, where the underlying actions involved entirely different causes of action and distinct injuries. The Lower Court’s decision conflicts with Supreme Court rulings, precedents of this Circuit, or other Circuits, warranting review by this Court to maintain consistency in this Court’s rulings—notably, the Supreme Court case Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). : Explanation: This question targets the lower Court’s failure to apply Florida substantive law properly. It focuses on the legal distinction between the 2017/2018 Eviction proceedings and the 2023 Fraudulent Lien action. It asks the Court to determine whether Federal Courts exceed their authority by expanding state preclusion doctrines and litigation privileges to defeat a valid statutory claim, especially when the state’s own laws would not bar the action. |

1-

In Hunter v. United States, 608 U.S. 718 (2026), this Court held that an appeal walver in a plea agreement is unenforceable when it would result in a “miscarriage of justice,” which would occur when leaving in place the kind of “obvious” and “egregious error “that would bring the judicial system into disrepute.” Jd. at 724. This Court remanded for the Fifth Circuit to decide whether enforcing petitioner’s appeal waiver — which would leave intact a special condition of supervised release requiring him to take any psychotropic medication that a physician prescribes, over his objection and without any particularized, medically-grounded findings by the sentencing court — would constitute such a miscarriage of justice. The Fifth Circuit held that it would not, concluding that neither its precedent nor this Court’s precedent establishes the constitutional error alleged by petitioner as an “obvious” error worthy of correcting notwithstanding the appellate waiver.

The questions presented are:

1. Whether, under this Court’s decision in Hunter, a sentencing error constitutes an “obvious” error rendering an appeal waiver potentially unenforceable as a “miscarriage of justice” only if controlling precedent of this Court or the court of appeals already has resolved the precise question.

2. Whether, under this Court’s decision in Hunter, a district court’s supervised release condition requiring a mentally competent, non-dangerous defendant to take psychotropic medication prescribed by a medical doctor — imposed over the defendant’s objection and without particularized, medically-grounded findings — is an “egregious” constitutional error that, if left uncorrected on appeal, would bring the judicial system into disrepute.

1

I. Whether the district court’s erroneous response to a jury note resulted in the jury convicting Petitioner of a conspiracy which was not charged in the indictment. The court told the jury that evidence that both brothers had individual agreements with other co-conspirators was sufficient to convict the two brothers of the single conspiracy charged in counts three and four of the indictment. The district court should have instructed the jury that the government must prove the single conspiracy charged in the indictment and if the government proved some other conspiracy the jury must acquit. The Court of Appeal erroneously held that the court’s response was not error because the response must be viewed in light of the instruction as a whole. This holding is in direct contravention of this Court’s decision in Bollenbach v. United States, 66 8. Ct. 402 (1946) and should be reversed.

IT. Whether insufficient evidence existed to convict Petitioner of Bank Fraud or Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud. The government failed to prove that Petitioner intended to defraud a financial institution or that Petitioner intended to obtain any of the moneys…or other property owned by or under the custody or control of, a financial institution by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. The Court of Appeals erroneously held that when a defendant uses a false name to open an account he defrauds the bank of the banks funds. This 1s error.

2