Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Sep 19, 2026

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court seeks review of a First Circuit decision arising from a habeas corpus request. The petition challenges the denial of a Certificate of Appealability (COA) and argues that the lower court applied an incorrect standard, including a failure to hold a hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b) despite reasonably specific, non-conclusory factual allegations. It also contends that the district court conducted a full merits analysis rather than the required “debatability” framework referenced by Buck v. Davis.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages54

Reading Time19 min

AccessFree to download

Questions Presented

List of Parties to the Proceeding

Corporate Disclosure Statement

Table of Contents

Table of Authorities

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

Opinions Below

Jurisdiction

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved

Statement of the Case

Procedural Background

Factual Background and Travel

The Evolution and Nature of the Underlying Criminal Case

The Radhakrishnan Declaration

The Government Offered No Testimony, Affidavits or Evidence

The District Court Did Not Call For or Conduct a Hearing

The Memorandum and Order of the District Court

Standard for Determining Whether A Certificate of Appealability Should Issue

Reasons for Granting the Writ

Conclusion

No. 19- | In The
Supreme Court of the United States

JOSEPH A. CARAMADRE,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent. | | --- | | On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit | | PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI | | JOHN W. MITCHELL, ESQ.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN W. MITCHELL Supreme Court Bar \# 200159 Attorney for Petitioner
P.O. Box 163
Bedford, New York 10506
(914) 234-6260
[lawofficejwm@gmail.com](lawofficejwm@gmail.com) | DICK BAILEY SERVICE, Inc. · 1-800-531-2028 · [dickbailey.com](dickbailey.com) [REPRODUCED ON RECYCLED PAPER] i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Should a Writ of Habeas Corpus issue to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (“Court of Appeals”) on the grounds that the showing that Petitioner made before the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island (“District Court”), in support of his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction and sentence, satisfied the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S. Ct. 366 (1985) and their progeny, and therefore, that Court of Appeals erred in denying Petitioner’s motion for a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) permitting him to appeal the District Court’s Decision and Order denying Petitioner’s motion and denying him a COA. 2. Should a Writ of Habeas Corpus issue to the Court of Appeals because that Court erred in failing to grant Petitioner’s Motion for a COA on the grounds that in the proceedings below, the District Court abused its discretion by failing to hold a hearing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 (b), eventhough Petitioner’s Motion alleged reasonably specific, non-conclusory facts that, if true, would have entitled him to relief. 3. Should a Writ of Habeas Corpus issue to the Court of Appeals because that Court erred in failing to grant Petitioner’s Motion for a COA on the grounds that the District Court did not apply the proper standard in adjudicating Petitioner’s request for a COA, because the District Court did not base its decision upon the standard of “debatability,” but rather on a full merits analysis, in violation of this ii Court’s holding in Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773, 197 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2017) . iii LIST OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT No corporations are involved in this case. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ..................................... i LIST OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ........ iii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ........ iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................... iv [TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... vi](TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... vi) [APPENDIX INDEX................................................](APPENDIX INDEX................................................). ix PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI .......... 1 Opinions Below ................................................... 1 Jurisdiction ......................................................... 1 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved ............................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................. 2 Procedural Background ...................................... 2 Factual Background and Travel ........................ 4 The Evolution and Nature of the Underlying Criminal Case ................................. 6 The Radhakrishnan Declaration Why Petitioner’s Co-Defendant’s Testimony Would Have Been So Powerfully Exculpatory ....................................................... 11 The Government Offered No Testimony, Affidavits or Evidence of Any Kind to Controvert the Sworn Declarations Proffered by the Petitioner and/or Mr. Radhakrishnan ............

FAQs

What issues does the petition present for the Supreme Court’s review?

The petition presents whether habeas corpus should issue based on Strickland/Hill standards, whether the denial of a COA stemmed from an abuse of discretion for failing to hold a § 2255(b) hearing, and whether the COA decision used the wrong “debatability” standard under Buck v. Davis.

Which legal mechanism is central to the petition’s requested relief?

The petition seeks a Writ of Certiorari and challenges the denial of a Certificate of Appealability (COA), arguing entitlement to appeal the district court’s decision denying § 2255 relief.

What does the petition argue about the hearing requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b)?

It argues that the district court erred by not holding a hearing despite allegations that were reasonably specific and non-conclusory, and that this failure contributed to the erroneous denial of a COA.

Sep 19, 2026

Upload by Lucas Martin